Leopard Vs. Vista 420
Rockgod writes to point us to an ongoing series of articles, "Leopard vs. Vista," by Daniel Eran. The latest is part 4, Naked Sales, and it's a meditation on hardware without Windows, Apple's strategy of hardware-software integration, and the dissatisfactions that arise from the creative tension between Microsoft and hardware manufacturers. (The earlier articles in the series are linked form this one.) From the article: "The vast majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, and actually can't be sold without it. Leading PC hardware makers can't freely advertise PCs sold without Windows, or with an alternative OS such as Linux, without having to pay Microsoft significantly more for every other OEM license they ship. That's why all name brand PCs prominently repeat their own version of the cult-like phrase 'Dell recommends Windows XP Professional,' as if there were a choice in the matter and they thought it would be helpful to provide some guidance... Apple's current Get a Mac advertising campaign doesn't compare Mac OS X to Windows, it compares the complete experience of a Mac with that of a PC. After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."
For nerds at least (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For nerds at least (Score:5, Funny)
Easy : Someone naked getting you hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they still sell PCs without OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised that Dell, Gateway and HP would still be taking it up the rear. Ubuntu is a good enough system for a lot of homes that only need to do email, web, and type grade and high school papers.
Why would they still be subject to such ridiculous terms, especially after MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly status?
Because there is no enforcement. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is still "legal" to pay Dell to be part of your "advertising campaign". Which, in effect, reduces the cost Dell pays Microsoft per license. Those who do not want to be full partners in the campaign will be paid less than those who do.
Logical, isn't it? So if you push Windows instead of Linux, you pay less for Windows than if you did not. And the profit margins are so slim on computers now that the OEM's will take whatever deal is offered in order to increase their profits.
And since Microsoft still has the monopoly on the desktop, all the OEM's have to offer Windows. Even if they don't like the terms of the deal.
Re:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes.
There are enormous economies of scale in building for the Windows market. You do not opt out of a market that has ninety to ninety-five percent of your potential customers.
Re:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but we do often Xerox a document, or use a Kleenex after eating Jello. Personally I see nothing wrong with a person Googling a topic of interest. It has become a verb, and the term has appeared in recent pop-culture as such. Often times a word (or new use of a word) becomes acceptable merely due to common usage. In other words, I can google your name because it's "cool" to do so
Now on the other side of the argument, I have read in the past that a trademark owner risks losing the trademark by allowing the term to become common; Xerox in particular is one I read about. If they do nothing to defend the term as their legal trademark, it could eventually become public domain... but Google as a verb has only popped up in recent years (compared to, say, Kleenex)...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A company could offer a cheap Windows and a more expensive Linux option, but I doubt many people would pay for Linux if they could just buy the cheaper machine, nuke the install, and replace it with a free OS (or just ke
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like it to me -- remember, the cost of OS X are amortized over all the Macs sold, and possibly by iPods too. It's entirely possible that the fraction represented by a single unit becomes negligable.
That's possible too, if you really do mean "nearly identical." For example, a system supposedly equivalent to
Re:Can someone explain this to me? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you lay down the cash for that shiny new MacBook, you're not just paying for the hardware. You're not just paying for the OS. You're paying for it to Just Work (tm).
Apple has quite the reputation to live up to in the Just Works department. Even if they released a 'generic x86 OSX' with the disclaimer of 'don't expect it to work at all,' people would still expect it to. Apple would still get bad press over it. That's not what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, does Apple advertise, "This is waaaay better than you could ever do it!" No. Again, nothing is stopping you from posting your 1337 r0x0r new system (d00d, with picz!) on the intarweb. I don'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As an Apple user, I am guaranteed that OS X will run perfectly on Apple's hardware - you don't have to think about it... it just works. If Apple were to give up control of the hardware spec, they would have an exponentially harder time making changes to the OS without breaking this seamless user e
Re:Can someone explain this to me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Macs are a bit more expensive by design, I believe. Cultural exclusivity plays a small part in the pricing and marketing. But a strong economic reason for Macs being (a) perceivably better and (b) more expensive is that by narrowing their choice of common components down to a single set that they know integrate well, they are opting out of the competitive race that drives the costs and quality of a typical Windows PC down to least-common-denominator.
BTW I've worked for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple's reality distortion field was way nicer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what happened at the last place I worked. The managers didn't like Linux as it was FREE and they made some statement that they wanted all Linux machines taken off the network. We had to point out that our Network management software was running on a Linux machine, and they'd have to cough up soem cash to replace the machine [plus a few other Linux machines we had around the place].
They decided against us removing the Linux ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, same difference to me...
jeffk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Integration has always been Apple's differentiator (Score:5, Insightful)
From the original Mac, back in 1984, to the iPod, Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software into one seamless experience. They certainly haven't always hit the mark, but it seems they have an advantage in an era where experience design continues to become more important.
Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages, but Apple has always been a systems company. Microsoft has subordinated hardware to software, and the PC industry has developed according to that dictate. Maybe that is why so many people immersed in the Windows world have a hard time understanding how the Mac is different.
Re: (Score:2)
Not with anyone I talk to. Apple is most definitely a hardware company, if you measure this by income. Their software is merely the hitch, at least as far as consumer level offerings. You see this most clearly in OS serialization. Where MS has it calling home, wanting your first born child, and your left pinkie as collateral, the Apple OS has never been serialized. Legalities aside, you can install that
Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's not really a wise way to "measure" it. Apple is a hardware and software company. Where would Apple be without their OS and software? It's integral to their strategy. The original Mac was revolutionary because of the software design in the OS, not the hardware (although there were hardware innovations as well.)
Same with iLife, iWork, etc... all of the consumer level offerings are not serialized.
But Apple sells a lot more than just consumer-level software. Final Cut Pro, etc. Logic Pro is not just serialized, you need a hardware dongle to run it.
They are a hardware company. They sell Macs and iPods (soon to be phones). People buy Macs because of the software, not the other way around.
If people buy Macs because of their software not the hardware, then isn't that an argument that they are a more software-driven company than hardware-driven?
Re: (Score:2)
But they must be a vanishingly small portion of Apple's market, because this has only been possible for a very short time. Not very many Intel Macs have been sold yet.
Also, it is only recently that Windows has gotten anywhere near as good as MacOS. In past eras, there was no competition (well, Amiga was competitive in some areas, but still a minor player). Historically, the OS and application
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was that those solutions were very expensive, and what MS did was decouple the OS from the machine to create a myth of an equally powerful cheap machine. I say myth because if all the costs were factored in, the savings often were not that great. What was the benefit is that a person could buy a much more flexible machine, and if they were on a budget, but a lower quality machine than would be available from a company that actually cared about reputaion. As time went on, MS forced it's OS onto every machines, and created the monopoly. Any OEM, really system integrator that actually provided support to the end user, was forced to supply only MS OS, while MS could sit there raking in the profits while doing comparatively little.
But the front line is still, and always will be, the system company. These are the people that provide the front line support. The problem with the PC industry is that though they provide the front line support, they do not in fact reap very much of the profit. MS, who does relatively little, get the money, while all the real producers are fighting for the crumbs. But it is thier decision.
The point is that the long term successful companies are system companies that keep attuned to the users needs. IBM is a good example. HP is a good example. Apple is a good example. In fact, when Apple tried to be a hardware company, with spin off of Claris, the Newton that did not integrate, and a failing OS, the company floundered. It bought into the idea that hardware companies were more viable than system integrators. As much as people wish for Apple clones, supporting every cheap piece of trash on the planer comes at too high of a price.
Even MS is going to be a systems company, if it will survive. It will survive on the XBox, which is an intergrated product. It will survive on phones, if it will ever just make one instead of trying to force the phone companies like it did the computer OEM. Otherwise it will just be a speciality shop, serving legacy machines.
I'm not sure what you're getting at (Score:2)
why are there SO MANY game controls, 3D visualization equipment, Wacom tablets, hardware in gernal [sic] for the PC?
The PC market is larger than the Mac market, so there are more third-party hardware vendors for PCs. That doesn't, as you implied, mean that "noone [sic] else makes hardware for apple [sic]." There have always been many third-party hardware vendors that make Mac-compatible gear. But I don't really see how this has to do with the level of hardware/software integration in Apple products one
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As opposed to doing what on a PC?
Mac:
1) Plug it in and it works
PC:
1) Plug it in
2) It works
"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an OS" (Score:4, Informative)
Macs aren't more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS, just as Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer does not raise its cost for Windows. Windows would not be cheaper if the company removed IE, just as Apple wouldn't save any money by shipping Macs without Mac OS X.
Err...well, yes Macs are more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS. That's because Apple has to recover the cost of developing that OS through sales of Mac hardware. Note that I'm not comparing the cost of Macs and PCs here, I'm talking about the cost of a Mac as an absolute. A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X. Whether it would be worthwhile for them to do that I leave as a (rather obvious) exercise for the reader.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an (Score:2, Insightful)
And yet the hardware in a Mac is only half of what makes
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an (Score:3, Interesting)
I did a comparison between a Dell D620 and a MacBook. Guess what? The price was almost exactly the same. And depending on how you configured each to get a close match between the two, either one could be more expensive.
Bottom line, there is no appreciable difference in price when it comes to base features, warranty, ect.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At the time we were (and still are) building our own pcs for desktops and servers and installing Windows XP Pro on the desktops and Windows Server 2003 on the servers.
As far as hardware went, buying Macs were considerably more expensive than our build-it-ourselves machines.
Software though w
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an (Score:4, Funny)
Naw, really?
Parent is wrong, not insightful (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, you have no idea what "TurboCache" [hardwareanalysis.com] means, do you? Let me enlighten you -- it's Nvidia marketing-speak for "fake memory." The "256MB Quadro NVS TurboCache" doesn't have 256MB of memory; it's named that because it can use up to 256MB of system memory. It's not actually much better (if at all) than Intel's integrated video. And it certainly isn't comparable to the MacBook Pro, "with up to 256MB of dedicated graphics memory!" [apple.com]
Second, the MacBook Pro is also most likely better in several other ways, so you'd have to upgrade all those other things on the Dell to make it comparable. You can't go around saying "Macs are more expensive" when you're cherry-picking particular aspects of the machine -- they have to be comparable in every aspect, not just (for example) graphics.
So, in other words, your argument is both wrong and stupid. Have a nice day.
Re:Parent is wrong, not insightful (Score:4, Insightful)
But even in that case, saying "Apple is more expensive" is still disingenuous and misleading, because you're still making an unfair comparison. The only thing you could really reasonably say is "Apple doesn't make what I want." They're entirely different statements.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't bet on it. If Apple did not develop MacOS, then Mac hardware would not be as popular. If their hardware was less popular, economies of (lack of) scale would kick in, and make it more expensive. As their popularity grows, Macs get cheaper.
Let's cut the "more expsnsive" nonsense... (Score:2)
HP dv2000t 1.83 Core2Duo / 512 / 60 / Combo / 1280x800 / full battery / Pro OS = $1,097.99
Woo hoo! One dollar and one penny.
I blame the Windows OS (Score:3, Informative)
To code a Windows app on your own isn't particularly hard, but I don't think it scales as well to large groups - there's too much cruft in there, and too many ways to screw up with C++ because it's a complicated language. A group of 30 clever people, experts in the language, can be let down by one not-quite-so-expert person not realising some subtle interac
Hardware and software... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac.
I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the
clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because
it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in
fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor
authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a
machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint
reade
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for your friend or his PowerBook
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hardware and software... (Score:5, Informative)
why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by
forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
1) Piracy. By making you buy complete Macs they know they got paid for OS X as well, the hardware is the biggest and most complex dongle possible.
2) Support. By having just a few fixed configuration, testing and support is much easier. Many crappy experiences with Windows is due to crappy hardware and crappy drivers.
3) Image. Apple wants to have an image, for example they've never released a low-end machine. The iPod was built on image, like "You can have any color you want, as long as it's white" which most people thought died out with Henry Ford. They're not going to give up on their hardware image easily.
4) Pricing. Apple doesn't really charge a fixed price for OS X, they can price-gouge you based on what hardware you intend to run it on. If they had to offer one price that'd run on anything from Mac mini-class to Mac Pro-class machines, they couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
> that the only way they can compete is by forcing people
> to use it?
Because OSX is only good on Apple hardware? By opening it to standard PCs they loose the advantage of developing operating system designed (tested, supported) for specific hardware parts.
I hate Windows and use OSX and freenixes only. But I have to admit that lots of "Windows problems" are related to the fact, that it is intended to (try to) run on any obscure piece of hardware
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by
> forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
Thats easy, they are afraid of MacOS X becoming another Windows clone, Windows just can't get the same integration with the hardware the way MacOS X can, because Microsoft just can't control the hardware that is used the way Apple can. If Apple to relinquish that control, MacOS X would lose it's Integration, and at least half of
Re: (Score:2)
I will never switch to an OS that only runs on one brand of hardware. If Apple's two laptop models don't impress me, I'm screwed. There are litera
laptops, clitmouse, touchpad, andmouse (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac. I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint reader, but I don't *LIKE* mice, and really don't need more crap to carry.
I prefer mice to touchpads but as for clitmouse, I don't recall ever hearing of them. Years ago when I had a working laptop, now that Apple has released the Macbook Pro with Core 2 cpus I'll get one, I had a second mouse I kept in the laptop case to use when away from home. Sometimes I even carried a keyboard. Now, when Apple is actually shipping MacBook Pros, I may get a graphics tablet with it. Of course if so I'll run into the problem of being able to carry it all in one case.
I know that Apple wants to both simplify their software support requirements, and continue to get revenue from hardware sales. However, they're cutting themselves off from software revenues by requiring it to be used on their hardware. I'd have bought and tried on a spare laptop already if I had the option.
Apple isn't just a hardware or a software company, as someone noted earlier in this thread Apple is a systems company. If Apple were to release OSX for generic PCs, to tell the truth I'd like to see that, then they woud run into more than one problem. First Apple would have to support more than just one hardware system or a multitude pieces of hardware. Then if for whatever reason, a computer system or hardware didn't work, Apple would get blamed, it wouldn't "just work". Two, Apple would see a decline in hardware sales. And conceivably the biggest mistake is that they would run smack dab right into MS's territory, the commodity desktop OS.
It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
Apple doesn't force anyone to use thir hardware, I'm using an HP PC so Apple didn't force me to use a Mac. Yes, if you want to use OSX you have to use Mac hardware but that's a choice, you don't have to use OSX. Simply if you use OSX on a Mac then you know it's going to work, Apple couldn't guarranty that if they allowed OSX to run on any old computer, on top of which as stated above Apple would see a decline in hardware sales.
FalconWhen you write for specific hardware.... (Score:5, Informative)
I built a Smoothwall firewall last week, that kept crashing. I finally tracked the problem to a bad NIC (that was just good enough to run in Windows and to not to generate error messages in the log).
Does that make Macs better than SW? maybe h/w-wise
Do I blame SW for the crappy NIC? I shouldn't, although I cursed them repeatedly while trying to find the problem
Do I blame Microsoft for the crappy NIC? of course, this is Slashdot
Vertical
Why? (Score:2)
It seems they'd have decent grounds with all these OEM deals.
Or am I missing something and they actually are, or have been but have lost such a case?
It just seems without these deals, Apple would have quite a bit to win.
the silent mac minority (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:the silent mac minority (Score:5, Interesting)
Our research group uses lots of USB keys, partially because we have lots of people in our group, but also because some of us *cough, cough* tend to lose theirs. Of three major brands of USB keys, they all work initially with XP, with OSX, and with linux (KDE, XFCE, command-line, whatever). About eight of the ten or so keys, though, have eventually failed on the OSX machines around here, though still work just fine for XP and linux. I don't know which OS/filesystem causes it, or if the OSX machines just don't push out the voltage necessary to operate these USB devices properly after a while, or what.
Also, plugging in my dad's digital cameras and my girlfriend's into OSX has never failed to bring up easy dialogues to transfer pictures, etc. But they've never failed on XP (without installing drivers) nor on linux (again, drivers are already in the system, and there are no problems).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On Linux, I couldn't get my camera to work (other than as root) for over a year. The distro installed a fucked up default config and there was virtually zero documentation on how to fix it.
I actually considered reinstalling windows (and the retarded 100MB of camera bloatware), just for this one thing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> how do i assign a user mount permissions in fstab (to mount floppies etc.)?
In the options section of the fstab, add the option 'user' to the mount
point, e.g.:
First up on da google for "mount permissions".
PenGun
Do What Now ???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind you, this is a reasonably expensive camera (Canon Powershot 3IS). Perhaps proper USB support in the peripheral makes more difference than the OS??
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd say that is the standard on Windows too, I've never had a problem getting digital cameras to work and in general without own drivers. Maybe there was something particularly odd about this camera, which might have made it far more difficult on Mac too? Like say it required a custom driv
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing though, whenever I try to use my camera with a Windows system, it asks me to insert the non-existant driver CD...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the silent mac minority (Score:4, Informative)
Re:the silent mac minority (Score:5, Informative)
Not all tools are perfect (the Finder does have problems sometimes), but to blame the tool because the building won't go up, well, that's just uncool.
There is nothing you haven't mentioned that hasn't a resolution that requires you to spend a lot of time on it. Tired of using the GUI? Go around it; this is a BSD after all. It'll likely work.
Is It the Same Half That's Wrong With Apple Too? (Score:5, Funny)
After all, the hardware half of a Macintosh is just a PC.
Buyers vs. Sellers (Score:2)
Actually they can't be bought without it, not sold. There's a difference. You have plenty of options for buying PCs without Windows. There's only one place you can go to buy a PC to run OS X.
Windows will continue to dominate (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux, Ubuntu is a step in the right direction, but until you no longer need to be an ardent computer hobbyist or know one to set it up, it ain't happening fast either. What Linux really needs is some kind of mature plug and play especially because people keep buying crap to hook up to their computers and they want to use it. There's lots of good software, the hardware link is what's needed if Linux is ever going to have a "Year of the Desktop".
In any event, in terms of manufacturer's offering an OS, it's going to be a Windows world for them for quite a while. There is no incentive for them to upset the apple cart until MS brand recognition go south. Geeks and their friends may think it has, but not enough to make a difference. In the meantime, all people who favour a particular OS or platform can do is enjoy their difference and show their friends. Someday it will make a difference.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So true. That's the only time I find myself looking to Windows. The point being I should really just finally decide between getting a games console or giving up games full stop!
Smug soun
Vista? No thanks. XP or OSX will do fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple still sells systems (Score:3, Informative)
When the IBM PC was introduced, the whole "system" idea was almost completely forgotten by the general public. In 2006, when you say "computer" most people think "I buy a box from someone and install an OS from someone else on it".
Apple simply never stopped selling systems, but we still hear people "I want to buy the Apple OS for my beige box" comments.
Apple sells complete systems, you can't have the software without the hardware, or vice-versa.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They do? Most people buy a PC from Dell or PC World or Currys and it comes with Windows on it. Installed, with a set of recovery disks that reinstall it. PCs bare of an OS seem to me to be a rapidly vanishing breed.
playing dvorak's advocate.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac is just a PC with OS/X instead of Windows (Score:2, Troll)
Apple probably wanted it because (other than being more powerful and better) it gives them some control of what OS goes on Macs and lets them also make it more difficult to run OS/X on non-Mac non-EFI systems.
Why replace something that works well (PS/2)? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thought Control (Score:3, Insightful)
MS is almost as bad. They practice economic monopolies. Most Apple fans consider this nothing more than crass capitalism compared to Apple's more artistic monopolistic model.
Linux is the only truly "free" solution. Do whatever you want, however you want to do it, and don't worry about making the wrong choice because the only cost to the consumer is their time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:subject (Score:5, Informative)
Delicious Library
Comic Life
Grid Computing out of the box
Handbrake (although I hear there's a Windows beta now)
MacTheRipper
iLife (iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, GarageBand, iWeb)
Shake
Logic, and Logic Express
Final Cut Pro
This list of Mac-only software was written from my memory in less than 30 seconds. I'm of the very strong belief that tides have turned, and now OS X has the strongest line-up of software available on any platform at any price. Sure, there may be 10x more contenders for various tools (like DVD rippers, editing software, etc.) but the best in class is on the Mac. And it keeps getting better all the time due to technologies like Core Data, and Core Image, (and now Core Animation) that means that one person developing for the Mac can produce something that would take ten people to do the same on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Just my $0.02
Shake (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shake_(s oftware)&oldid=84014269 [wikipedia.org]
And as you can read there, but I'll say here because I just love saying it in any MS vs Apple discussion: Apple killed support of Shake on Windows shortly after acquiring NothingReal.
So yes, GP poster, it's "Mac-only" (actually, there's the Linux version - but they charge you considerably more.) - but only because Apple made it such.
Just a few problems in your post... (Score:5, Informative)
Control Panel -> Sharing -> hit the 'XGrid' checkbox. Done. I guess that qualifies as "best in class".
The parent poster's argument was that a lot of the Mac apps are "best in class", and I think he has a point. Certainly nothing you've said has managed to disprove it. As for "the only reason people buy
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bottom line is that it's still a near useless app that can be replaced by freeware on any platform
Fundamentally, every program can be replaced by a monitor program, with the user typing in hex bytes into memory locations. There's this idea that having a program take the drudgery out of a t
Mac users like shiny things... and you're a troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My mac, on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The only thing I don't like about OEM PC's is basically having to pay for Windows even if you don't want it (yes, I know they offer some with linux and maybe you can get a refund) b
Nothing lasts forever. (Score:3, Interesting)
E-nuff already - just buy what you like!
Hmmm, how about a nice Dell Power PC, preloaded with Debian? What, I can't buy such a nice hardware and software combination from the world's bigest PC maker? What gives? Oh yeah, the M$ monopoly I had almost forgoten about.
The market is not free to provide people what works best or even what they want. The Mac people, like everyone, puts up with the higher costs and intentional waste of M$'s dirty little tricks. It's worth documenting, but it won't last fo
Re: (Score:2)
Most computer shoppers use either Windows or OS/X - Linux users are a smaller user base in comparison.... Give the public the option to buy a computer with Linux or Wi
Re: (Score:2)
SW vs. HW/Users vs. Enthusiasts (Score:2)
Software quality and software interoperability matters the most to computer users. Hardware enthusiasts are more interested in building system than actually using them. If you care about what hardware you have more than how well the software works, then you are not a computer user. Building machines might be a fun hobby for you but you really do not have a clue
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. That is why I bought a MBP back in February making it my third mac. OS X runs great and so does Vista RTM. I spend most of my time in OS X though when I'm at home on my mac.
Have fun with your Dell
I don't have a Dell. If I had one, I would not have a good user experience.
You're only half right. (Score:2)
You are only half right. Yes they are allowed to sell different OSes without retaliation. However, if they want to receive the coop revenue from Microsoft and the heavy discount for each copy of Windows they ship, then they must sign up for the voluntary "reco
Re: (Score:2)
With Macs I have have what Apple blesses. "See how seamlessly it works!?" Yeah, because you only support that hardware, duh. I had to buy extra storage for various servers we have (which predate my arrival) and a 500GB SATA drive from Apple is $400; I can get a 500GB SATA for a PC for $220.
Perhaps the take-away has nothing to do with e-peening one hardware p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I made no claims about any software being "bug-free." What I said was that the integrated solution provided a better user experience for the end user, and that was what has apparently been the driving force behind consumers' purchasing de
Re: (Score:2)
When you buy a Dell, you don't get a choice past the first two pairs you list. You don't get to choose the motherboard, you don't get
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The *only* complaints you could have in the ones you listed are the motherboard and (possibly) the processor... And Apple design their own motherboards, so that's what you get. Who *really* cares what motherboard you have, as long as it does its job ?
To break it down for you:
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck is a "moral" platform? Tools are neither moral or immoral.
In any event, saying this in opposition to Windows totally invalidates anything useful you might have said. Of course, if you're truly a power developer as you say why do you need an IDE in the first place? Aren't the API's enough?
Troll (Score:4, Informative)
That is equivalent to MSFT partner programs which cost a lot more than three and a half grand. It gives you access to compatibility labs at Apple and other perks including discounts on hardware and early access to the next version of OS X seeds. None of MSFT's programs offer that.
Compare that to Microsoft's approach to developers, which is reflected by Steve Ballmer's comic "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" dance. Eg. Microsoft gives away free versions of Visual Studio.NET, you can downlad all the SDKs for free, etc. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE out there. The other ones don't come close to it in long-term usability (as Carmack said on his blog some years ago).
Right.... MSFT gives away lite versions of their expensive VS.NET product which you cannot be used for large projects. Apple includes gcc, all the SDKs for shipping and previous releases of OS X, Xcode and interface builder with every release of OS X on the DVD. Anyone can sign up for a free account to download free updates to the tools and SDKs.
Speaking of MSDN:
Sorry, but you are going to have to try harder. I have the top tier MSDN subscription through work.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
48.3% MS
15.9% Dell
9.4$ HP
4.6% Apple.....and so on.
Apparently 'other' have 19% of this market.
Now, you just have to ask what the units are to see this is nuts. Suppose there are 100 of these things being shipped. He is saying MS shipped 48, and Dell 16. It must follow that none of the Dell ones were MS ones, whereas in fact we know that all o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's never healthy for one company to dominate to this extent, whoever they are. A truly healthy consumer PC market would have at least three equally strong players, with about 33% market share each. Just think of the innovation that would drive. The ironic thing is that computers would by now have considerably exceeded the current abilities they are now endowed with in terms of features and usability, and it's quit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing stopping you from installing Ubuntu on the Intel macs if you are a masochist. I have Vista RTM installed on the other partition on my MBP.
AFAIK Mac's come with OSX and you can't order them without OSX either.
Sorry to be rude but "no shit sherlock". Macs bought from Apple come with OS X installed for "free". The hardware sales subsidize OS X development. If you really want linux, you could install it yourself or talk to