It's Okay to Hate Microsoft...

[sith_killer_99]

but let's not forget Apple.

I have heard a lot of Microsoft bashing in recent days, not just form the folks at SSG.;)

I have heard and read complaints about the new OS, as well as XP. I have heard the claims that the MAC OS is superior and that Microsoft ripped off Apple with their new OS, and still the product is inferior.

As a result I have been doing some serious research on MAC's, OS X and of course Vista.

Here is what I have discovered.

We all know that in the world of OS's Microsoft dominates. Few companies have been able to compete with Microsoft on the same level. Linux and other OS's have often lagged behind on the feature rich programs that consumers demand. Apple has manged to hold enough of the computer market that many third party software developers will produce versions of their software to run on Mac's.

Not too long ago Apple announced that Intel would now produce processors for their Mac computers. This was a huge opportunity for Apple, one that they intentionally passed up. You see Apple could have easily used the opportunity to release their OS for use on PC's...they didn't. Here's why...

For Steve Jobs and Apple it's all about control and money, the two go hand in hand. Mr. Jobs has learned nothing from the history of the computer market, his business model remains the same as always. Forget the fact that it is the very model that almost ran Apple into the ground. Steve Jobs remains, a money hungry control freak. In his world it's all about "proprietary" ownership.

Just look at Apple's track record. The GUI, Apple tried to stop Bill Gates from developing his own version. The hardware design specs, Apple still controls. IBM once held the same philosophy, but once they allowed other companies to design and mfg. PC's the market took off and Apple was left in the dust all the while Steve Jobs was wondering why. Need more proof? Take a look at the iPod, you can't even change the batteries!

In a market that breeds competition consumers benefit. The reward for PC users because of IBM's bold move? Cheaper PC's for starters, newer faster and better technology. Just look at the facts AMD vs Intel, Nvidia vs ATI and in the arena of Mobo's, RAM, power supplies, cases and hard drives I can't even count. All of that competition has lead to ground breaking new technologies.

Yet Apple remains, as always proprietary from top to bottom. Worse yet you can't even think about upgrading what has become one of the most essential upgrades to hit computers in recent years....the monitor! Sure I could go out and buy a seriously under powered Mac mini and install a good monitor or buy an insanely priced Mac Pro, but most Mac's have fixed screens.

You want a bigger monitor, buy a new Mac.

You want a faster processor, buy a new Mac.

You want more memory, buy a new Mac.

You want to upgrade that three year old computer, buy a new Mac.

And most insulting of all is the price...

Base line 13 inch screen MacBook $1,099! My Toshiba with comparable CPU, memory and twice the hard drive space with a 15.4 inch screen...$699.00! The bonus for me was that I bumped my laptop up from 512MB of RAM to 2GB and STILL paid less, of course Apple does have a comparable MacBook (with the smaller screen of course) for the ultra low price of $1,674.00! Oh but Apple does offer MacBook Pro with a 15 inch screen, comparable to my current Toshiba for $2,174!

All of this brings us back to the real problem computer users face with OS's today, lack of real competition! Competition that Apple could easily provide, but chooses not to. And here's why, if OEM's started loading Mac OS onto their machines Apple would have to put their over-priced-self-contained-throw-it-away-and-buy-a-new-one-in-two-years computer up against a reasonably-priced-upgrade-as-you-need-to-computer. This would mean that Apple would have to compete with companies like Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony and others. Why sell an upgradeable machine for $500.00 when you can sell a disposable machine that needs to be replaced every couple of years for $1,000+ a pop?

I understand Steve Jobs paranoia, in the 80's and early 90's it was more than justified. But he really needs to get over his gripping fear of letting go, competition is a good thing. With their OS Apple could soar to new heights and if they take a small hit on Mac sales it would be a small price to pay considering the number of people who would buy their OS for PC's.

I have heard and read some great reviews on the Mac OS and readily admit that it sounds like a superior OS. Unfortunately I will never know for sure because I refuse to dish out the kind of dough Apple wants for one of their machines and Apple refuses to release a version of their OS that will work with my PC. Maybe Apple is just afraid that if they had 50% of the OS market people would start targeting Mac's with maleware and their security holes would be laid out as plainly as the early version of Windows XP.

Just for giggles let's do a side by side comparison.

My Toshiba laptop vs the comparable MacBook Pro

Toshiba costs
$899.00 (I spent $200 upgrading the memory)
$159.00 (New Vista OS)
$ 70.00 (Norton Internet Security because Apple is more secure)
$ 40.00 (Net Cam because Apple comes with one built in)

Total: $1.168.00

MacBook Pro costs
$2,174.00

Difference in cost $1,006! Is the OS really THAT much better than Vista?

I will admit that Microsoft is not my favorite company, my XP upgrade in 2001 was rough (Vista has been smoother), Microsoft dosen't have a great track record and their new OS has shown to perform slower in many aspects than XP. But at the end of the day when the world goes to sleep Windows still dominates and it is within Apple's power to change that, but they won't.:(

It's okay to hate Microsoft, but let's not forget about Apple.

[Kidhuman]

Lets put it this way, until a company like Linux or someone else keeps up to date with their OS, Gates has us by the nads. I was looking into an upgrade to vista for my current PC(40 gig HD, with about 17 gigs free right now) but Vista takes up 15 gigs of space. So potentially I would need a new hard drive. While Vista is still in its infancy, it will run into issues, so I might as well wait a year or so and then purchase a new computer. An OS that takes up that much space is absurd, considering XP is working fine and only takes up 1.5 gigs of space.

I have never used a MAC, but people I know that have swear by it like its the best thing since sliced bread and would never leave it. But if it is anything like you said to upgrade(I have no reason to dis-believe you on it) I shall never use a MAC.

[Blue2th]

I love my Mac G5. I've had it for three years. I see no need to "buy-a-new-computer-every-two-years" as it is very powerful, does have a separate screen I can replace. I never get freeze-ups, viruses, etc. Comparing Macs to PC's is like comparing Apples to Oranges with worms. I see no need to hate Apple, as I have not had any problems. I have heard though that some new Mac users are not too happy with the Intel processors and their problems running familiar Mac friendly software. The reason Steve Jobs and Apple have "proprietary" ownership is the domination of Microsoft, yet I can run Microsoft programs on my Mac if I choose to by getting "Virtual PC" software. In ten years, I may still be running on this upgradable G5, while PC users may have bought three or four computers that have totally become useless during that time. Who is saving money? Just my opinion.:lipsrsealed:

[JimJamBonds]

Ohh you're just mad because you drank the water all those years ago. :D

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29023

[sith_killer_99]

The reason Steve Jobs and Apple have "proprietary" ownership is the domination of Microsoft

Thus the main point of my post.

All that is required, for evil (Microsoft) triumph, is that good men (Apple) do nothing.

If Apple would allow their OS to be released for use on PC's (which are still cheaper, more upgradeable and last at least as long as a Mac) then Microsoft wouldn't dominate.

The only reason Apple keeps a death grip on their OS is because it is the selling point of their over priced, under supported, mostly non-upgradeable (G5's are more of an exception to the rule) computers.

Some background:


The Power Mac G5 was introduced with three models, all sharing the same physical case, but differing in features and performance. The 1.6 GHz model shipped with 256 MiB RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, and could employ a maximum of 4 GiB of RAM. The 1.8 and dual-processor 2.0 GHz models shipped with 512 MiB RAM. The dual-processor model also included an ATI Radeon 9600 graphics card.


Apple introduced the Power Mac G5 they stated that this was a five year collaborative effort, with multiple future generations, but it didn't last that long. Apple had to retract the promise to deliver a 3 GHz processor one year after its introduction and IBM could never get the power consumption down far enough for these processors to fit into a portable computer.


The PowerPC 970 is built using a 130 nm manufacturing process, and the PowerPC 970FX and 970MP are built using a 90 nm fabrication process.


Problems

* The PowerPC 970 ran at higher temperatures than older models, meaning it could not be fitted into Apple's PowerBook or iBook. As a result, Apple laptops continued to be fitted with the older G4 chip until the Apple-Intel transition.
* All PowerPC 970 models lack the instruction to do little/big endian swapping. This proved to be a problem for Microsoft Virtual PC, which relied on this feature in G3 and G4 processors to accelerate performance.
* The PowerPC 970 lacks certain features that the POWER5 processors have, such as virtualization, RAS and microcode necessary to run i5/OS; as a result, IBM cannot make PowerPC 970-equipped blade modules for its System i server line.


The PowerPC 970 had 512 KB of full-speed L2 cache and clock speeds from 1.6 to 2.0 GHz. The front side bus ran at half the processor's clock speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G5


In ten years, I may still be running on this upgradable G5, while PC users may have bought three or four computers that have totally become useless during that time.

WOW, that is a bold statement!

Are you trying to say that PC's are more prone to physical deterioration than Macs? In this regard they are the same, electronic components are no more prone to damage because they are in a Mac or because they are in a PC, heat is their worst enemy and that usually stems from poor air circulation in the case or poor user maintenance (dust build up). Mechanical breakdowns happen because parts wear out, hard drives and optical drives mostly. But neither mechanical nor electronic components breakdown fast because they are PC or Mac. Perhaps you refer to out dated hardware, again there is no difference between a Mac or a PC as both computers run the most up to date hardware the mfgs. can get.

My Sony Vaio is 6 years old now and runs perfectly. I have never had a single problem with malware that Norton didn't catch, never had to reload software, never lost data or suffered from vicious viruses. I have upgraded my video card added RAM and installed an additional hard drive. The G5's are capable of these type of upgrades. The biggest difference is that my PC cost about half as much to buy (vs a comparable Mac) and upgrades are cheaper and easier. Oh and when I do finally decide to buy a new PC, my old one will stick around as I plan to convert it into a server for my home network. So my old Vaio will probably give me a good 15 plus years of service before I even consider getting rid of it.


Who is saving money?

I am. But don't take my word for it...

Toshiba $1924.00 vs MacBook Pro $2,799.00
http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cdetupdate.to?seg=HHO&poid=367607&cartAction=Add&coid=-30605&selcmpcodpipcrt=&qtycrt=0&lincrt=0&selxslpoidtab2pip=&COMP_CPU=CPU-0192&COMP_Operating+System=OS-0078&COMP_Color+Variation=COLOR-0002&COMP_Office+Software=APP-0025&COMP_Memory=MEM-0061&COMP_LCD=LCD-0038&COMP_Graphics+Controller=GFX-0038&COMP_HDD=HDD-0043&COMP_Optical+Media=SBAY-0027&COMP_Mini-PCI%2FWiFi=COM1-0029&COMP_Bluetooth=COM2-0005&COMP_Battery=BAT-0001
vs
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6064002/wo/kn7S7nmPg3Es3ptrAEd1P3r3fHw/2.?p=0

Dell $599.00 vs iMac $999.00
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DDCWBA1&s=dhs
vs
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6064002/wo/kn7S7nmPg3Es3ptrAEd1P3r3fHw/16.?p=0

Dell $3,879.00 vs $4,895
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DXCWSK1&s=dhs
vs
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6064002/wo/kn7S7nmPg3Es3ptrAEd1P3r3fHw/20.?p=0

The fact is PC's are cheaper, because they are not "proprietary" so no one single company has a monopoly on the PC market. Apple controls the Mac market and it's OS! Thus they can set the price on their machines with their OS and no one can challenge them. Microsoft may have the lion's share of the market on OS's but how many people would flip out if Microsoft was also the leading seller of PC's?

Look, Macs are good machines, they are aesthetically pleasing. They have a kick butt OS, but I'm a cheap SOB and I just can't shell out the kind of cash Apple wants, especially when I can get a machine with the same specs from Toshiba for hundreds of dollars less. I'd also be a fool to believe that the Mac lasts longer simply because it has an Apple logo on it.:rolleyes:

[plasticfetish]

I won't argue the price thing when it comes to Mac vs. PC. It's always bothered me how you can't just go buy a new replacement this-or-that, because Apple wants you to buy it from them, and to pay stupid amounts of money for simple services like installing memory. But, coming from a guy with two 7+ year old computers on his desk (an IBM and a Mac), if you want it bad enough, there are plenty of ways to upgrade and keep your machines running.

The biggest scam going is that you need to upgrade your system every two years or whatever. I'm running the current Mac OS and using all of the current software that I need/want to use on an old Apple Yosemite that a friend gave me when she "upgraded" to a new system. If anything, the best thing about these machines is how long they can last and be useful if you need them to be.

My problem with most other PC manufacturers, is that I don't know who to trust anymore, and given the nature of the market these days, I hardly understand the difference between one ambiguously named processor or another. With Apple, you have the opportunity to walk into a store where they're all lined up, well maintained and ready to use. You can play around, ask questions and get reasonably easy to understand answers from people that are actually trained to explain things to all kinds of customers.

Now, I'm not a total idiot, and I know what's what for the most part, but when I was walking by a salesperson and his "mark" at Fry's the other day, I almost laughed out loud when I heard how this guy was blabbering away at the dizzy eyed customer. (And if a computers biggest selling feature is the number of media card readers, etc. on the front, then that's a problem.)

Apple is what it is, because they know how to sell their product, and the others don't.

[LusiferSam]

SK_99 you have to compare computers with the same specs to judge which is cheaper, not just the cheapest model each manufacturer makes. The Dells vs Apples is totally flawed. I just checked your Dell vs MacPro and the Mac was cheaper. Your Dell vs iMac is a tower vs an all in one, which makes no senses. The only that makes senses is the Toshiba vs MacBook Pro. If your going to compare Apples to PC you should be compare apples to apples.

[sith_killer_99]

Good points PF.

I have to admit that it is a bit tasking to keep up with all the new technology. In fact I was planning on building my own PC in late 2005, but there was a LOT of buzz about new emerging technology. Not your run of the mill stuff like faster processors, front side bus speeds and fancy new graphics cards. I'm talking about architectural changes, DDR2, PCI-e, etc. So I decided to hold off.

I have noticed two things in that time. First, my old PC has held up just fine and second, the prices are just starting to drop to a reasonable level on things like dual core processors, DDR2 and all the other technology that emerged last year. But these major changes in architecture don't happen very often, so in a year when I come back I should be able to put together a smoking little machine pretty cheap with room to grow if need be.

Yes, I know, I just said my old machine is holding up fine. But next year I plan to take the HD leap. I want a system to go with it, something that can handle some pretty potent HD video work and the old system just won't be able to keep up. Also my wife does a lot of work in Photoshop (not to worry our home PC is still running XP ;) ) and a stronger system will save her time.

As for Apple, customer service goes a long way.

I still wish Steve Jobs would release the Mac OS for PC's, someone needs to give Microsoft a little competition. Maybe if Microsoft spent a little more time on the defensive (read: competing for the OS market) then they would not have so much time planning their offensive (read: taking over every tech industry they can think of).:(

[Blue2th]

Well you are probably right about most things there sith_killer_99. All I know is the horror stories I heard from my PC user friends before deciding to buy my Mac. I still hear them. Maybe they are not as savy as they should be, I don't know. Me being a relatively new computer user, I didn't want the worries, and yes I paid for it, but I'm happy with my choice. And yeah, customer service does go a long way. (You pay for that too)

[Darth Jax]

hating microsoft comes as easy to me as hating walmart.

even if apple's OS was available on another platform - i'd still use a true mac system. i don't care if it could run OS 10.4 i'm not getting a dell. i've always been willing to pay a little extra for what i consider quality.

[plasticfetish]

I still wish Steve Jobs would release the Mac OS for PC'sI am honestly amazed that they haven't finally merged into one big uber-system yet, but I know it's all marketing... Apple has it's share of the market and Windows has its share. I think they stay divided just because some people really get off on having that "other" system to bash.

In defense of PCs and Windows, I'm still using a Pentium 2 IBM with Windows ME on it. I'm at about the end of my rope with what I can do (max memory, as many and as large a hard drive, etc.), and I haven't upgraded Photoshop (etc.) beyond 6.0, but at this point I can get by with what I have.

Pretty realistic about needing to bump things up in the next year or so though. Adobe has all sorts of new software coming out... :neutral:

[sith_killer_99]

Me being a relatively new computer user, I didn't want the worries, and yes I paid for it, but I'm happy with my choice. And yeah, customer service does go a long way. (You pay for that too)

See here's the thing. Most non-proficient computer users would probably be happier with a Mac. My mom is the perfect example. A mostly self contained simple to use system would be great for her, plus they are more secure. She wouldn't have to worry about spy-ware, viruses, etc. like with a PC, and she wouldn't have to worry about the often difficult to understand firewalls and anti-virus programs.

But she exists on a fixed income and just can't afford a Mac. So she bought a cheap eMachine and lives with it.


i don't care if it could run OS 10.4 i'm not getting a dell. i've always been willing to pay a little extra for what i consider quality.

I hear you, for the most part, but let's face it many of the components in a Mac are the same as the one's in a PC. Intel processors, Nvidia or ATI graphics cards, etc. The real quality is likely in customer service. But what about builders who want to put their own system together? I can build my own PC and would love to run OS 10.4 or 10.5 when it comes out.

[Tenric78]

I am honestly amazed that they haven't finally merged into one big uber-system yet, but I know it's all marketing... Apple has it's share of the market and Windows has its share. I think they stay divided just because some people really get off on having that "other" system to bash.

In defense of PCs and Windows, I'm still using a Pentium 2 IBM with Windows ME on it. I'm at about the end of my rope with what I can do (max memory, as many and as large a hard drive, etc.), and I haven't upgraded Photoshop (etc.) beyond 6.0, but at this point I can get by with what I have.

Pretty realistic about needing to bump things up in the next year or so though. Adobe has all sorts of new software coming out... :neutral:

Aren't macs used in the publication industry and in the graphic design industry a lot more than PCs? I never understood why. Does someone know?

[LusiferSam]

See here's the thing. Most non-proficient computer users would probably be happier with a Mac.
I totally disagree with. For a techo idiot (which is my mom), yes a Mac works better. That's because many things a made easier or kept hidden from her. That's not to say all things are better or easier, just many. Now for a proficient user (and that really dependents on what you mean by proficient user) I think it highly dependents on the types of tasks their doing as to which is the better platform. I challenge you to name a task that a PC can do that a Mac can not (or vis-a-vis). Some thing are better run on a Mac, some on a PC.



I hear you, for the most part, but let's face it many of the components in a Mac are the same as the one's in a PC. Intel processors, Nvidia or ATI graphics cards, etc. The real quality is likely in customer service. But what about builders who want to put their own system together? I can build my own PC and would love to run OS 10.4 or 10.5 when it comes out.

Yes. If you have a enough tech know how to build your box you can surely put Tiger (Mac OS 10.4) or Leopard (Mac OS 10.5) on that box. The InsanelyMac Forums (http://forum.insanelymac.com/) have instructions of installing Mac OS X on a generic x86 box. Not have ever try this myself I don't know how good the instructions. From what I've read it sounds pretty easy. But it's illegal and isn't the full true version of Tiger or any Mac OS X.

[sith_killer_99]

I challenge you to name a task that a PC can do that a Mac can not (or vis-a-vis). Some thing are better run on a Mac, some on a PC.

So long as the software support is there, then you are correct. However the same can be said about a machine running Linux, or some other OS. Computers are computers, they can do whatever the programs allow them to do.


Now for a proficient user (and that really dependents on what you mean by proficient user) I think it highly dependents on the types of tasks their doing as to which is the better platform.

Gamers are often considered the "power" users these days, in fact many tests are run using games as a benchmark and in that area at least PC's just plain rule. Now, mind you I am not really a gamer, but the fact is you just don't see many Mac's on the cover of Computer gaming magazines. I also realize that more games are written for PC's and that they are designed around PC's but in a side by side comparison PC's just blow Mac's away.

Here are some comparisons:

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html

Out of 12 tests Mac toped the list only twice and came in dead last 5 times! These tests included Photoshop as well, where Mac fell in the middle.


I totally disagree with. For a techo idiot (which is my mom), yes a Mac works better. That's because many things a made easier or kept hidden from her. That's not to say all things are better or easier, just many.

That was mostly my point, add that to the fact that the webcams are built in (no hardware installation required) and the fact that the average Mac in not seriously underpowered like the $500.00 eMachine my mom bought, thus requiring upgrades, which are difficult for techno idiots, and it's easy to see why someone who knows little or nothing about computers would be better off with a Mac. Add to that, good service and support and it becomes a no brainer...high costs aside.

Of course there is always the chance that a techno idiot may want to buy software and end up getting the wrong version.:D


But it's illegal and isn't the full true version of Tiger or any Mac OS X.

And that's my point. I don't want to run an illegal system that isn't the full true version of Mac OS X (or Tiger). If I wanted to do that I could run a semi-clone version of the OS on a PC.

Who knows, maybe one day I will buy a Mac, just to see what all the fuss is about, heck they do make a bare bones system for $599.00 in the form of a Mac mini.:D Though I would have to spring for another $250.00 for more RAM.:p

[plasticfetish]

Aren't macs used in the publication industry and in the graphic design industry a lot more than PCs? I never understood why. Does someone know?There's another thread running over at actionfigs.com about the same thing now, and I posted about this there, but...

For the most part it has to do with the fact that Macs were the first computers to feature really good design software. For the longest time companies like Adobe gave preference to the Apple platform. Most peope were schooled using Macs. Most design related businesses have invested in Apple products, so -- I think anway -- most of them are just biased in favor of what they know and have used for years. That, and graphics software has traditionally run smoother on Apple computers. Nothing sucks worse than putting in hours and days worth of effort on a project, only to have it swallowed up by a computer that's crashed because of some cheap little virus.

Just the same, like I said at AF.com, the tide has turned a bit since the rise of the internet. Most design houses or ad agencies or whatever, tend to work with both Mac and PC.

[LusiferSam]

Gamers are often considered the "power" users these days, in fact many tests are run using games as a benchmark and in that area at least PC's just plain rule. Now, mind you I am not really a gamer, but the fact is you just don't see many Mac's on the cover of Computer gaming magazines. I also realize that more games are written for PC's and that they are designed around PC's but in a side by side comparison PC's just blow Mac's away.

Here are some comparisons:

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html

Out of 12 tests Mac toped the list only twice and came in dead last 5 times! These tests included Photoshop as well, where Mac fell in the middle.

I love looking at such test results. But these are two different batteries of tests. You nailed the nail on the head for the game test. Most of these game are writen for PC's and ported or rewritten for Mac. Normally these ports or rewrites are done pretty poorly. The one expetion is Quake 3 (an old game, I know), but a the only one of those games written to be run on a Mac.

In the Photoshop tests (I'm not going to count the Maya test) the Mac and the Opteron average out better than the rest (but same as each other). It's third place in two of the test, but first in two as well. But these are G5's (2.5 GHz) so this is old data (2005 at the oldest). We really need current data to really be fair now.

Now I really don't consider gamers to be the true end users of a computers. They're more the lowest commend denominator. A game really is the best test of your computing power. High end simulations of mathematical systems are.