Vista PCs: These Prices Are Insane!

The fact that Mac sales are growing much faster, particularly in the premium space and despite the obvious ACQUISITION price differential speaks volumes. Most markets are rational in the medium term. Why does this happen? Vista has significant hidden costs which many higher end customers are less and less willing to wear. Chief among them is the cost to keep the OS alive.

On the less 'rational side', many users of both platforms (includes me), grow more disenchanted by Vista over time, and grow fonder of the Macs less intrusive and more stable environment over time. Like in a relationship that at best is stale, eventually users depart what they don't grow to like. No doubt MS knows this and is acutely aware that they have rethink their approach radically. They have done this in the past and may be able to do it again. Never underestimate MS.

This has pretty much always been true when comparing Apple's low-end offering to Dell's and HP's low-end boxes. If you match feature for feature it's closer, but let's ignore that now and concentrate on the ASP "gap".

Despite the gap, it seems the last couple of years -- quarter after quarter -- Apple breaks its record for Macs sold. Has Apple done this because nobody knows about these "bargain" PCs, or because they didn't exist? Of course not.

There have always been people willing to pay for the Mac experience, and ignore those who would tell them something else is "just as good". What you're seeing is an increase in the number of people who believe a Mac is worth it. Some of us have felt that if more people would really try a Mac they'd feel the same way and, clearly, it's happening.

Whether this is because Apple is supposedly "cool", or there's an iPod "halo effect", or the Apple Stores, or Apple's ads, or Microsoft stumbling with Vista, or any other reason you care to name, a greater number of people are seeking out Macs specifically (not just "a PC") and know the difference.

Will this number of people ever exceed those who buy primarily on price? No. But those are people Apple can leave to others. Apple, as always. will have to keep moving forward. But they will not be driven down to razor margins like the Dells and HPs of the world. It would make zero sense for them to go there.

Gerard's got it. Buy an MSFT machine, you get a MSFT machine. To "match" an Apple, you have to place no value on the SDK that comes with an Apple but is a separate cost to MSFT-loaded machines.

To no one's great surprise, MSFT is now competing with Linux for the low-end market--people who need a word processor, can't do calculations without a spreadsheet, and are willing to deal with Windows Media Player's DRM issues because they only watch videos on YouTube or YouPorn or purchased DVDs. In short, the old AOL "I need it easy, not done well" crowd.

People who need an actual computer are realising that they might as well buy a Mac. So the margin is moving (not yet to the point where I'm there, but rather closer than a few years ago).

What extra costs to keep Vista "alive"? Please.. stop with your stupid bs. I've been using Vista for over a year now with no extra money put into the machine than what I paid for it originally. List your "extra costs" or stfu already.

"...extra costs to keep Vista 'alive'"?!? WTF? Seriously, I have at home both a MacBook Pro (Penryn) and a Dell XPS 420. The fact that I'm comparing a notebook to a desktop is irrelevant in the context, and let me say: the Dell running Vista is just as stable as the MacBook Pro running OS X 10.5.4.

Now, what does this mean, exactly? Well, it means that neither system has crashed since I've owned the MacBook Pro (about 4 months), and the Vista system hasn't crashed since I owned _it_ (since October 2007). Both are equally stable. And, both are equally enjoyable and easy to use.

Certainly, there are differences. As a summary, I'd say that Vista does more stuff, but what OS X does, it tends to do more elegantly. This makes Vista more frustrating in some cases, but OS X more limiting in others. It's a tradeoff, frankly.

The notion, though, that Vista brings some sort of built-in premium that can overcome a nearly 100% price difference between the systems compared in the argument, is just ludicrous. And, for the typical user, the Vista system is the better option--there's far more software, support, and general knowledge around Windows (including Vista) than there is around OS X.

Still too many problems for 64-bit Dimdows users: having to run parallel 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Internet Explorer and Media Player, give up on drivers for less-than-new hardware, and suffer random loss of application features.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=511

To Mark:

Windows Vista is not the better OS for "average" users. The "average" doesn't care about being able to run a billion different word processors, they only want one that works well.

The "average" user wants Internet access, email and a bunch of stuff that done, easy and cleanly on a Mac.

Gamers want a Vista box. Games is the only category were wide selection matters. But...

You can run Vista on Macs and the top of the line iMac is a perfectly fine gaming machine. Best of both worlds.

Ubuntu Linux does it for me and millions of others. Rock solid computing, Compiz 3D effects Apple & Vista can't match. No way I'm paying for Apple, or buying anything that says made for Windows on it.

So, how hard is it wipe the drive and load XP on one of these new laptops? Are the drives available?

Just wondering.

Oops, should have typed 'drivers' instead of 'drives'

@Jim

Macs don't need AV software. I believe that is what Gerard was getting at. That is usually a cost for most WIndows users.

But thanks for being so polite about it.

I will preface this by saying that I have both a Mac and a Dell, and while I run both, I use my Mac 90% of the time these days. I just prefer the OS. However, I have never had any issues with the software on my Dell, just the CD ROM, and I run XP.

I think that the key thing being overlooked here is who is purchasing computers. From my experience, I have noticed that people who have little to no computing sense tend to purchase the PC, and shy away from the Mac. Then, they do all kinds of stupid things to the PC, and wonder why it doesn't run properly. Mac doesn't seem to have this problem, as people who don't know much about computers tend to go with the familiar, and if the familiar is what they use at work or at school, odds are its running Windows.

Personally, I have never had Windows issues, at least not since Win 98. All of the machines in our house run just as smoothly as the next, with Vista, XP, Linux, and a couple versions of Mac OSX being run. It comes down to the user, and when the user is an idiot, the machine will not run properly, almost guaranteed.

Yeah, that old "Mac vs. PC" price disparity argument surfaces again. The market is speaking loud and clear Joe, and it tells us that consumers value the package Apple offers more than the package served up by Wintel vendors.

Mayber Ballmer and his braintrust should look for real solutions to their shortcomings instead of blaming it all on irrational consumer behavior or Apple's "unfair" advertising.

OMG - Vista is cheap to buy out of the box,run and get it , Apple sucks oh ya and Apple sucks.

Come on , Yes i have heard the story of the guy that knows everything , having his vista machine running for years, problem with that is most these stories come from folks that as techs or gamers know how to spec a computer to a OS.

This is not something everyone knows how to do and computer sales people are not very costumer oriented.

How many times has Microsoft changed the menu structure of their products to the extent that extra training needed to be done by IT?
How many functions have moved in the OS so that only the commnand line or editing a registry can fix a givin issue?
How many times has plug and play NOT been plug and play?...
I could go on but have code to write.

Windows Vista OS of the stars.Do ya think Gwen Knows shes helping bush kill americans with that HP ad. Yay MSnbc

Joe, it's not *all* about price. Apple has a compelling value proposition in the Mac:

1) Gorgeous industrial design, second to none
2) Superb build quality
3) Wonderful ease of use and productivity
4) Top-notch support
5) Better security than Vista's

This is above and beyond the "cool" factor which makes Mac a status symbol. I own an Omega Seamaster watch (the "James Bond" watch). It cost me over $2,000. Is it "better" than a Timex? Depends on your definition of "better."

The Omega is worth $2,000 because I perceive value in its appearance as jewelry, and in its nature as a status symbol. Yes, it can tell time, too. What's wrong with that?

OS X's ease of use and productivity should not be underestimated. Mac owners really appreciate this quality.

Overlooked in this comparison is that raw specs (RAM+CPU) do not translate to performance. There are plenty of systems that look good on paper, but as soon as you take them home you realize they take 3 minutes to boot. Hardware vendors know they can fool people by putting in lots of cheap slow memory, slow disk drives, etc. and buyers won't won't discover it until they get home. Macbook Pro is fast because the entire machine is tuned for performance, not because they threw in only a fast processor and RAM.

Reading your comments I felt for a moment that I am on different planet, with all this talk about how ...massively users prefer Macs these days. People YOU NEED TO WAKE UP. Apple had a 2-3% increase in their Market share the last couple of years, mostly bc of Vista early shortcomings. Last time I checked with reality, WINDOWS had more than 90% of the Desktop Market. And No it's not just games people that make Windows a winner. Wake up. It's applications. There are millions of applications that run On Windows and usualy none that run on a Mac or Linux. THAT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE.Until that changes windows will have 90% of the market. Period.

Open up your PC and Open up your Mac. The same components are inside. Why overpay?

Gee Evan, calm down before you pop a vein. What's with all the caps and shouting? If Macs are so trivial why the fuss?

Oh, and tell your friend reality I said hello.

Um, Evan, take it easy. You need to get off of those uppers.

There are NOT "millions" of Windows apps. And there *are*, in fact, many thousands of apps available for the Mac platform, many of them ported over from Windows.

And, yes, Windows does have 90+ percent market share. However, size of market does not equate to quality, security, reliability, and user friendliness. Windows is lacking in all of these areas.

The Windows market has enormous inertia by virtue of its size. So it is absolutely understandable that Windows will remain dominant for a long time. It's important to note that the Windows market grew rapidly at a time when Win9x ruled the day. And as we all know, Win9x was notorious for being flakey, unreliable, and frustrating.

@Evan:
Windows has 93% of the desktop market because they used to have the best desktop applications on the lowest cost platform AND because Bill Gates knew how to lock in vendors and companies and governments. Not just by back-room deals, but by going after the low-end and letting the demand trickle up. They have such a bankroll that they can now openly buy entire sections of governments. But they can't buy one thing: a market share greater than 100%.

And just as its exponentially more expensive to increase your speed toward the speed of light, so it may be similarly exponentially more expensive to grow one's market share toward 100%. So Microsoft isn't likely going away, but they will flatline soon unless they find new markets to conquer.

Windows still is the only Gaming platform of the three (Windows, Mac, Linux), in general.

Mac is still the only serious video production platform of the three.

Linux has a solid and growing application base. And don't forget that some of the top open-source applications (including Firefox, OOo, VLC, Inkscape, and others) have smooth and solid native Windows versions too. How many of Microsoft's applications run natively on Linux?

The big advantage of the PC for me is that I can run any of several Linux distros well. With a few cross platform apps, Linux is looking less like a foreign operating system. I'm used to Firefox, Open Office, XnView, etc in both. That's why I don't want a Mac. But if I did, there are distros that emulate the look of a Mac too.

I have been seeing this trend among HPs line of notebooks for a while now. Back in February, a young lady at school started carrying a HP Special Edition notebook with 2 GBs of RAM, nVidia Graphics, AMD X2 64 bit processor and Vista Ultimate 64 bit.

Another young lady popped up with a special edition HP also, only difference was a smaller screen, 14inch. I was blown away when I saw the 4GBs of RAM in the WINVER dialog and an Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz processor. Only difference again too was that it used integrated graphics, but for that amount of RAM I wouldn't mind owning that notebook. Again Vista 64 bit (Home Premium).

Both of them have been pleased with their systems and have adopted well to Vista and its new features. The move to 64 bit was eventual, this is something Microsoft has bet on and believed in for a long time, with the false start of XP for Itanium systems the Company never gave up and with XP Professional x64 for AMD x86-x64 systems made significant strides and are now paying off through the successful release of Windows Vista.

I myself have jumped on the Vista 64 bit bandwagon, running it on my notebook with 2 GBs of RAM and its just been great, a slightly rough start, but the applications and device drivers have come full circle. With Service Pack 1 added to the mix, things have gotten even better!

Windows 7 will just be the mainstream affair for 64-bit, but its not impossible for Vista to steal the show between now and Win7's release.

I really don't care for all the Windows Vista / Microsoft bashing going on. I am glad that Linux is doing so well, and Apple says it is. Good for them, gives Microsoft plenty of room for improvement, and yes, they need to improve in Redmond.

I have been using Vista since the final release and after learning it, running it, and doing something that you cannot do in Linux, play some serious 3D gaming.

The penguin doesn't cut it gentlemen, and until the likes of Adobe, Macrovision, and Maya 3D Studio decides to develop for Linux, I will remain with Microsoft.

I've tried Open Office, and for the "Mom and Pop" at home that wants a free office product, they now have one and let the professionals who wants to collaborate with the use in the cooperate world with real production.

If Linux was such a hit, and all powerful and all knowing, don't you think that banks, financial institutions, the cooperate world would of jumped to something free and cheap?

Linux has nothing for me, and consequently, millions like me. Yes, it's okay if you people want to call me a "Softie" I don't care and when Seven is released, I'll have that too, along with Office 2010 and the latest PC games.

Linux isn't going anywhere in a hurry, they've been around for over a decade, and still as free and as open as it is, it is pathetically on the fringe.

Jim, we have a Windows XP SP2 machine and an iMac machine at home, and I also use a company-supplied Dell laptop running Ubuntu 8.04. So I can corroborate your views and add a few of my own.

The only reason, but a BIG reason, that my wife loves her Mac is because of how smoothly her advanced home video production works. Final Cut Express, which has enough of Final Cut Pro for most home video work, is head and shoulders above whatever is in second place (and light-years ahead of anything on Linux). And she had been using Adobe Premier on Windows XP through several iterations of Premier updates and Windows service packs. It got to the point that it was starting to become a money pit without the technical or usability advances to make it worth it. Final Cut Express just worked... there were a couple of quirks but learning the Apple Way of Doing Things solved them. And Adobe Photo Elements works wonderfully on the Mac.

But for those who can live without Adobe photo or video editing, and don't do serious video production at home (or professionally), as I don't, Linux is as you describe it and more. It just works and works well.

My wife maintains a number of home networks and Windows machines for friends; those that leave the paid version of Panda anti-virus enabled and Windows update enabled are the ones that give her the least amount of repeated trouble. She maintains one Mac (other than her own; his problems are due mostly to learning the Mac after years of Windows familiarity (attitude is 95% of this battle, the rest is knowledgeable support), and the installation of VLC to complete the Mac's knowledge of common video formats.

None of these operating systems is nearly as much fun as flying an airplane or visiting family and friends. But Mac does video like nobody else, Windows does games (and drains your wallet), while Linux has become a very decent desktop, and just gets keeps getting better all the time. A Mac in the house has showed me just how much Linux (via Gnome--I haven't spent much time with KDE) has learned from both Windows and Mac.

@ Philosopher

Nice to hear an opinion based soley upon one's own use and experience. Here at the office, I have a Mac Professional Dual Quad machine that my son uses now -- He likes it for his work. I use Adobe Creative Suite CS3 and produce video, sound, and other media.

There is no difference in perfomance and quality between the machines using the same high standards with Adobe, nothing different now, least not like it was in the beginning.

At least for us here, there is nothing, and I mean nothing that can ever begin to touch Adobe's Creative Master's products, period. We looked at what Linux has for Video rendering, in a music lab, and professional web developing, and there really isn't "Jack" out there.

Linux?

You people have got to be kidding! When 99% of people complain that XP or Vista crash all the time, get infected, or whatever mysterious problem that those of us who are not stupid almost never experience. How, then, is it that you think Linux will be better for them, if they are too dumb to keep Windows running? At least Apple provides a dumbed-down interface and has remained insignificant enough to stay off the hacker's radar.

@ Scott

Yes, I believe those that "shill", "boast" and "rant" on how good Linux, or how much better than Linux is, is a bit delusional -- Well, for those that just opinionate on how Linux works for them personaly, that's okay, least I think so.

For the masses, in reality -- Linux is a fringe operating system at best, though building up more ground, but even with this, I often wonder?

I mean how many people will run back to MS or Apple when they realize the cold reality of the limitations of Linux. Just because it's suppose to be free, certainly doesn't mean the best.

I think if you have made a sound investment in hardware and software gadgets, you are expecting it to work. Thats where Linux fails and needs some serious catching up to do. Even in Vista's early phases it still had a high level of compatibility and support for existing hardware and software. It has only gotten better with time. There are more and more people using and enjoying Vista. The 'fear' is over. Its always a right of passage for a new version of Windows to have some initial issues in the market, whether its device driver or software compatibility.

Shill shill Shill Shill Shill

Andre Da Costa obviously works for your unfriendly Microsoft Shilling Company.

Yes linux is free and has some applications for professional work. Most professional linux work takes place in an environment where custom software rules, think Americas Stock Exchange , the most demanding place for software. Think NASA, where things cant go wrong or people die.

Windows hasnt a hope in those environments.

While its true the recalcitrant companies like Adobe etc havent ported their applications over to linux yet, its only a matter of time.

And as far as usability goes , its easier to keep a linux machine going than it is for Windows based machines. And the attack vector for linux wont get bigger if it has a bigger market share because Linux is inherintly more stable and secure.

Linux was designed to be secure and windows is tacked together by sticky tape, thats why its useless against hackers, while linux is secure and it takes an absolute genius to crack a linux box.

Now go away all you shills.

If the trend is toward 64 bit. Expect some more good closeout deals on 32 bit laptops. These would be great deals for Linux conversions, a Vista laptop for $400 something with 160 gig hard drive and CD/DVD drives are a much better deal than those Eeepc's for $399. The Atheros 5007 wireless on laptops, are easily converted to Ubuntu and performs better overall than on a Windows install.

Vista is pretty easy to wipe off the hard drive and set up with Linux or XP. Then you can have a real computer that can operate and perform properly the way YOU want it with much less ram and no hesitation or mindless prompts asking you questions every two minutes.

I saw in a recent article that Linux commands nearly 3 % of the preinstalls in the U.K. As always the growth for Linux desktop is unlimited and by next year that 3 % can only go higher.

It is great to see that Windows XP is still available at Micro Center and will be for sometime. And speaking of Micro Center , they are selling a desktop with Ubuntu for $199 with decent specs.

And Apple? No one needs to spend $1000 to $2000 for a Apple computer. Tiger OS is still a viable OS and IMacs with Tiger OS are going for around $100 to $150 on E-Bay. Some are looking for Apple to command 10% to 12 % by next year. That should be a easy and attainable goal.

Personally I think it will be much higher, just Like the 3 % that Linux commands, expect it to be higher by next year..all at MSFT's expense. The dual boot installs with Linux on new machines continues to climb.

Yes Vista is "pretty", but 3 or 4 GB Ram to make it run the nice eye candy? Microsoft really painted themselves in the corner...didn't they? Also it is a tremendous waste of power just to run a operating system.

That report that Vista is "green" (saves power) is laughable just as that "unbaised" "Mojave" experiment...stuff like that makes great fodder for the Mac and Linux forums and goes to show how desperate MSFT is. Fool your potential customers, that is just GREAT for public relations....did Mr. Ballmer come up with that "experiment"?

Compiz Fusion can run circles around Aero and can do with less than 1/4 of Vista's RAM requirements. Clearly MSFT needs to go back to the drawing board and leave the next bloated hungry pig project at the stall next time.

@ CrimsonReaver :

"The penguin doesn't cut it gentlemen, and until the likes of Adobe, Macrovision, and Maya 3D Studio decides to develop for Linux, I will remain with Microsoft."

That's funny. Some gentlemen, and ladies too, seem to be finding Linux quite useful for little video projects, such as Kung Fu Panda:

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=415193

I find it interesting when you compared the Windows machines to Mac machines that you are really comparing machines targeted for entirely different audiences. For instance the laptop comparison between the 13.3inch Macbook and the 14 inch HP.

- The screen size different is a pretty significant factor. Smaller laptops are always more expensive then the large form factors

- No talk of weight. A lighter laptop is usually more expensive.

Both major factors in the area of price.

The comparisons of average selling price between Macs and PCs seems to be a waste of time. The PC market tends to be filled with a lot of lower end models that utilize:

- Lesser CPUs like the Celerons and Pentium Dual Cores
- Slower memory
- Slower hard drives

On top of that Macs typically target the higher end market and not the low end market where makers like Dell and HP dominate.

Don't get me wrong Apple has some very rigid approaches to selling machines right now. They have specifically target specific price points with machines that are relatively competitive price wise with the same feature set. However the Mac lines tend to be a lot more static then PC machines. Take a look at the Dell XPS1330 vs the Macbook. For the XPS1330 I can choose from a number of options for almost ever component in the machine both cheaper and more expensive, whereas Macbook has far fewer choices and the choices are strictly ones that increase the cost.

PC machines have something to offer all conceivable price points, whereas Macs target some very specific price points that are highly profitable.

I get all my Apple products "free". How you ask? I invested $20K in AAPL shares in 2004. My returns on that investment will pay for the stuff even if I buy a new, top of the line laptop and desktop every year for the rest of my life.

Not to be mean or gloat, but how much has a similar investment in MSFT earned since 2004?

@tommy...

"Linux was designed to be secure and windows is tacked together by sticky tape, thats why its useless against hackers, while Linux is secure and it takes an absolute genius to crack a Linux box."

Secure? Proving by how, and what? By operating through obscurity?

It doesn't take a genius to "Crack" Linux -- Linux didn't piss off enough people to waist their time on it. How many programmers are in the "Open Source" arena?

Yeah, can you imagine one of these getting upset and Linus T.? Then what?

Do you think that Linus is the only one with the source code?

Please... You can't be serious.

That's not saying much, and of course there are a good many sites out there to show the when, where, and how to all the known security bugs and work Linux needs. This is an old and inaccurate statement that belongs in the late 90's.

Wall Street is another bad example, a couple of years ago they tried another "trendy" platform that backfired -- Every couple of years they try something different, something new -- Bad example. And they, like so many others that I will imagine come running back to Microsoft.

NASA -- Please, sure they use Linux, and they use Apple, and a boatload of Windows -- Stop the FUD, you're insane and you're borrowing someone else's FUD.

Personally, it's no wonder you use the bs handle you do. Hey these Linux apologetics has been over-used here on this board already.

However; "Compiz Fusion can run circles around Aero and can do with less than 1/4 of Vista's RAM requirements. Clearly MSFT needs to go back to the drawing board and leave the next bloated hungry pig project at the stall next time."

I also agree that Microsoft needs to cut bloat and on the other hand, where are all the 3D games out for Linux like Sins of the Solar Empire, Conan, Diablo III, and the like?

If Linux can do some really cool stuff, why can't the decade old community put out a decent game?

---------------------------------------------
@Ano...

Thanks for the info and link, I like how they have a big Adobe Creative Suite splashed on the article. And if you really read through the article, you'll find that DreamWorks are still utilizing Windows heavily, since most of their work is done in the Windows and Apple platform. Also take note that the animating programs used are proprietary for the Linux side as well as the rest. So, really what's you point?

@Andre

I have been using Vista (x86) since the beginning and then about 6 months ago with my new ultra-hi-end machine, I went into the x64 and never looked back. I also have a medium end Linux and an ultra-high end MAC Dual Quad-Core Mac Professional box that my son uses now.

With the latest and greatest OS's and top end boxes I can safely say for me, and only me and my professional experience that MS Vista is the only real path to productivity and gaming bliss. All other contenders pale significantly.

I remember when Windows 95 first came out, people cried buckets with that, 98, 98SE, Me (and they had a right to on this one), W2K Professional (the stellar OS to date), and with XP.

Vista had a shaky start and now trial by public opinion has practically ruined it for the many reasons given. Regardless, Vista is improving. I have only excitement to see what MS will do now in Windows Seven with all the backlashling from the Linux and Apple gangs.

Thanks for your biased views, I mean, why can't you be as biased as those other guys out here in the first place?

Partisanship, when applied to consumer products, is mostly for the entertainment value. The old Chevy vs Ford argument: also benefits mostly the manufacturers & sellers of the "competing products" by generating free advertisement.

The fundamental truth about this Mac vs PC debate (ages old now) is that it reflects the needs and preferences of many individuals. That's it - nothing more. It's a lot like people saying, "My needs and preferences prove the value of this particular product and no one else's needs and preferences count."

This debate situation arises when people (as a group) "forget" that the purpose of the so-called free market is to provide an array of products and services which fit a large variety of individual needs and services. Apple Inc., in choosing to go after the consumers with more money to spend (per item) set its own course and has done well. Likewise, the other computer makers chose to go after the high volume / high turnover "average user" market and have done "better" in terms of raw numbers.

If the figures given in the article are correct: Apple's market share (in units sold) has grown to 8.5 % (from around 3%). But the figures in the article also show that Apple's per unit price is over double the price of equivalent Windows-based units: meaning the company is raking in 17% of consumer spending in the "computer market."

Apple's main coup comes in seeing clearly how far they can push their own pricing. As to whether the company gives value-for-value: that's just a matter of consumer / user opinion. Naturally - that brings us right back to whose opinion most closely matches our own. If Macs suit your needs and preferences: buy one. They are not prohibitively expensive - a person of median income can easily afford one. (Again - that's because Apple has done its market research and set its market strategy supremely well.)

Wise consumers are only concerned with getting the "right"
products at the "right price" at the "right time." This,by the way, is a version of the famous old motto of purchasing agents said this way: "My job is to get the right items at the right price at the right time." (meaning: for my company)

Only: no purchasing professional would ever say: My job is to get the right items at the right price at the right time - for all other companies too. So lets leave the arguments of what's right (Macs or Windows PCs) for everyone in the market to the people willing to waste their own time and energy on futile debates.

The only "votes" that count in this or any market is the money spent by customers.

@ EVAN,
"Reading your comments....... Wake up. It's applications. There are millions of applications that run On Windows and usualy none that run on a Mac or Linux. THAT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE.Until that changes windows will have 90% of the market. Period."

Evan, its obvious that you are either missing it totally or an MS troll. I am not sure which. :-)

Since the Mac runs Mac OS, Linux, and Windows XP and Vista, it runs 100% of the software in the world. Since your typical PC only runs windows, its OS limited. If only numbers make any difference to you, I am guessing your diet consists of insects. Since they make up the most creatures on the planet, they MUST be the best.

UGHHH, cockroach crunch cookies.. Well, they are the most.... so I guess you enjoy them. :-)

just a thought.

en

Joe, shame on you. From your earlier posts, I thought you had some sense in that shiny dome of yours.

AVERAGE price comparisons???????

So, great cars are NO good cause all cars have 4 wheels, a steering wheel and bumpers, and third world clunkers are cheaper on average.?????????

Ps, Macs come with iSight, great Apple applications, "H" speed wifi, etc. And a refurb MacBook from Apple costs LESS than $1000.

Hmmmm, maybe Vista is better than XP, just cause MS says so. LOL

Just a thought.
en

Crimsonreaver wrote :

"Wall Street is another bad example, a couple of years ago they tried another "trendy" platform that backfired -- Every couple of years they try something different, something new -- Bad example. And they, like so many others that I will imagine come running back to Microsoft."

---------------------------------------------------
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/061208-linux-wall-street.html?page=1

Wall Street crowd increasingly puts its money on Linux — market watcher Tabb Group estimates that Linux adoption among the 14 biggest investment firms this year will reach more than 72% of the installed operating server base vs. 60% in 2006

CrimsonReaver : wrote

"Linux isn't going anywhere in a hurry, they've been around for over a decade, and still as free and as open as it is, it is pathetically on the fringe."
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/01/linux-preloads-rocket-per-cent

Linux preinstalls rocket to three per cent

LINUX HAS MADE headway in Microsoft's UK heartland, the PC sales channel. The number of machines shipped with Linux preloaded on them has multiplied a whopping 28 times since Microsoft launched its Vista operating system in January 2007.

So it's at 3%? That's it in over ten years?

Wake me up when Linux Desktop reaches 25% of the market share... Oh by the way, I have Xandros 4.0 Professional on a PC by the way. Xandros is a wonderful Linux OS, but it's not free, but it makes a stab at things.

Crimsonreaver wrote :

"I also agree that Microsoft needs to cut bloat and on the other hand, where are all the 3D games out for Linux like Sins of the Solar Empire, Conan, Diablo III, and the like?

If Linux can do some really cool stuff, why can't the decade old community put out a decent game?"
------------------------------------------------------

So if Vista is all that great, then explain why X-Box, Sony PS3, and even Wii are popular. And why do people have to go out and buy special high end gaming machines to run games properly that even a regular Vista machine cannot apparently run well.

Just like MSFT choked the CPU with performance robbing DRM into Vista so it could "play" BluRay and HD DVD discs. People still mainly cannot buy computers off the shelf with built in BluRay players and even then...Who would want to watch a movie on a crampted 17" screen anyway?

And so they opt for stand alone BluRay Players for their HDTV home theaters. Just as consumers opt for stand alone game consoles. Or high end gamers prefer a stand alone gaming machine (running on XP because the performance is so much better).

Some Linux users still use Windows.Others have left Windows altogether in the dust years ago. Again people are free to use use whatever system they wish to use, some use all three operating systems.... . Yet no one needs to be chained to a closed proprietary ,high priced operating system anymore as those days are long over.

People want performance and the security that Linux brings them ...thankfully without the need for yet another $80 a year anti virus program (per Windows computer).

So why doesn't Linux have a higher adoption rate until now? Most Windows installations are from the manufacturer. And like Windows...most Mac operating systems have come pre installed. Most Linux installs are from the people themselves, though..thankfully that is slowly changing.

If the average consumer had a choice between a computer with Linux preinstalled, or have to install Windows themselves ...they would go for the pre install. And up to now thats where Windows had the unfair advantage.

tommy bommy scommy,

I do normal things on my PC. The last time I checked, I was managing and editing photos, creating a home movie in Windows MovieMaker 6, burning a DVD to share with my family and friends, all courtesy of the ease and simplicity of Windows Vista. Really cool, earthly experiences on the PC.

I am not interested in building a Space ship to go into Space or to Mars. And I don't have any interest in creating a Trading Institution to compete with NASDAQ and the S&P 500.

"$699.99, at some Target stores; 2GHz Intel Centrino (Core 2 Duo T5750); 4GB memory (but capped at 3GB by OS)"

Why capped at 3GB by the OS?? Vista 64 as well as XP 64 can use the whole 4GB and heaps more. 32 bit Windows is limited to 4GB but only uses 3GB not the 64 bit version. Methinks there is some misinformation here somewhere. Anandtech now uses Vista 64 in their standard test system.......with 8GB RAM.

Ralph Wrote: "If the average consumer had a choice between a computer with Linux preinstalled, or have to install Windows themselves ...they would go for the pre install. And up to now thats where Windows had the unfair advantage."

Let's see, Dell, and oh yeah, Wal-Mart tied this too, right?

Not much success there either...

I have two 30" HD LCD monitors and a Blue-Ray that works just fine on my Vista machine, HP Blackbird 002 with 250 watts of 7.1 surround sound, by logitech's best and your point is what?

The smallest screens I have are landscape 19" inches on my Xandros machine.

I don't know anything about an X-Box, but I do have a playstation III with all the bells and whistles on a 56" Plasma in the family room for friends and family to play.

Oh cripes I take that all back, I also have a 19" laptop -- So that would be my smallest screen unless you want to count my iPod touch -- But their not PC's.

My BMW SUV does have a smaller screen too, you know for backing up and it's quite handy. But I think out of all my screens, the smallest is definately the iPod Touch.

I'm sorry that I cannot tell you more about my gaming experience on the Sony PlayStation III, I rarely use it, though it is quite nice with all the wireless controllers, and that has a Blu-Ray on it too.

Come to think about it, it probably costs more than your Linux Box. I am not an average "Joe" user as far as electronics and PCs goes as you can read.

So after reading some of my comments, as you can see, I work hard, and I play hard and I got to get ready to go to Sturgis, I promised my girl a good time...

I hope that you can convince someone that Linux works for everyone. I am not the one you need to, to convince. My life revolves around the great products and applications that Microsoft helps generate.

See me later!
and best of luck!

CrimsonReaver (AKA Taylor, AKA Dr Doug). I'd like to say that apparently you feel that your day-to-day ocupation does not fit with your 'lofty' ideas of grandeur (which is noticeable given your rather pedantic language).

That's honest work, of enormous worth to a world where, since MS is the norm, we have a lot of PC trouble. Therefore, you are indispensable to maintain society's continuum.

Why am I telling you this? It's rather obvious that, consciously or unconsciously, you'd like us to know that Dr Doug is CrimsonReaver-an amateur writer of a couple short stories. And some game reviews.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=CrimsonReaver+&btnG=Google+Search

Assume who your are. And do it with dignity. That's the greatest legacy you can give your children. Remember, a man is not measured by his job, but rather is the man that shapes it. And hoping to receive some extra present from Ms, you feign to be someone who you're not-really, it's not dignified.
--------------------
Sorry my friend but I dislike the fraud.

Marco wrote

"CrimsonReaver (AKA Taylor, AKA Dr Doug). "
-------------------------------------------------

I wasn't aware of this...thanks for pointing this out. I was surprised on how MUCH he defended Microsoft. Windows after all is just a operating system, and Windows never changed my life or anyone else that I met.

Some prefer Windows because they are used to it...makes perfect sense, yet others are tired of spending hundreds of dollars on anti virus programs over the life of the computer and the headaches that goes with Windows and its very expensive Office software.

That is why Mac has taken off with their 8% share, now while Linux is at 3 % according to the trusted UK article. Mac has their 8 % with heavy advertising and excellent marketing. Linux has no ad dollars and no marketing at all and Linux is almost half of what Mac is....and that speaks volumes.

Will Linux save the world? Of course not, and neither Windows or Mac. Linux however,...has saved consumers, government agencies, military, NASA, school systems, companies like Lowes... hundreds of thousands of dollars in expensive licensing fees. And in this economy, that money saved can go into hiring new people and cutting prices on goods.

If Microsoft made someones life better and richer and more rewarding..thats great. But I never met anyone who can claim some software company changed their lives for them for the better. Unless of course one is in the business of fixing malware and virus plagued computers.

A operating system is a tool, and regardless whatever you are running..you can still watch videos, listen to MP3's, watch DVDs, print, email, instant messaging...etc.

The only thing Linux has done for people is to save them money and offer enhanced security with better performance. The Top 500 Super computing sites ...the Linux penetration is 85 % .

Obviously I do not work for Microsoft or never got free software or free laptops from them.

I have however got free operating systems and free software from various Linux based distributions.

But then again...so can anyone else...

Yeah, you're an idiot this one called marco, wrong guy, "mice" try...

speaking about armatures, you fit the bill... Keep trying and you may just figure who I am.

I'll give you a hint, there's obviously more of us called by this moniker.

"Still too many problems for 64-bit Dimdows users: having to run parallel 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Internet Explorer and Media Player, give up on drivers for less-than-new hardware, and suffer random loss of application features."

there is one single problem stopping the mainstream going to native 64bit. Drivers.
Oddly, this is the single point that apple doesn't have to worry about; when you control the hardware you can not only control the drivers, and make things more stable, but you can ramp up the price to anything you like.

"Vista has significant hidden costs which many higher end customers are less and less willing to wear. Chief among them is the cost to keep the OS alive."

the only cost i can think of that you may have to pay, but are in no way forced to, and there is less of an emphasis with it for vista, is malware protection.

Of course, if you could wipe the BS from your face you may of course see that mac users are more forcefully told to upgrade to the latest osx service pack every 18 months or so.. a service pack that has a much larger financial requirement.

"This has pretty much always been true when comparing Apple's low-end offering to Dell's and HP's low-end boxes"

the article actually says by comparing bottom end boxes for PCs and Macs you actually get similar specs, and that in the past few years its NOT been the case. The article isn't re-treading old ground; it's saying that price difference between PCs and Macs has increased massively in the past year or two.. to the point where it's almost twice as expensive to get a new mac than a new fully loaded and fully capable pc that runs windows.
When you think that there's three things that have prevented the mainstream vista hater from regarding it as a good OS. 1) the cost of the license, 2) the hardware requirements being above that of XP 3) the stability of the drivers.

All of these three points are 'fixed' in a new, modern, high specification, low cost OEM vista PC.

"Despite the gap, it seems the last couple of years -- quarter after quarter -- Apple breaks its record for Macs sold. Has Apple done this because nobody knows about these "bargain" PCs, or because they didn't exist? Of course not. "

i can see your point. People buy macs because of the perceived quality of the OS. They think it's much nicer than vista, and a majority of them have never used vista, and therefore don't actually know. People also don't realise that 'cheap' PCs these days actually have a decent build quality - i know, i recently bought a mid-spec dell PC, and was blown away with the actual spec, build quality, and the fact it came bundled with vista ultimate. there is an industry perception that you get what you pay for when you buy a 'cheap' PC.. my personal view is that you don't get what you pay for when you buy a mac.

as for the sales of non-apple PCs, vs apple PCs.. yes, apple really is doing well year on year, but it's still minescule compared to massive amount of consumer and business non-apple PCs - and you can bet a large portion of those sales ARE influenced by price.

@jrbrewin

You are like a fresh breeze here.

"my personal view is that you don't get what you pay for when you buy a mac."

How true. I leaped into buying a new Mac Professional Dual-Quad core with the latest OS and it was a brick after the second box, the first didn't even power up, faulty power supply. I took it back and kept the two 30" LCD monitors though. I did get a replacement and after downloading the 1.35 gigs of updates from Apple, the thing black-screened -- Mobo problems is what I was told. I couldn't believe it, I did try to reinstalled the OS and it worked terribly until it was discovered there was a problem with the board -- Hardware.

Time spent with the Apple techs and my son gets the machine and loads tiger and after a period of time, hobbles the thing into a lackluster performance.

My son eventually got it going good enough to be happy to use it -- I gave it to him. He then plugged his docking station for the pod Classic and the computer died.

Under warranty, we took it back and got another box, third box and everything is working okay, yup, just okay.

I went out and purchased a HP Blackbird 002 after seeing one in a shop in a small town nearby and worked great right out of the box, nothing to it and I am very happy. The tech I purchased this machine from has one just like it and loves it. Though mine, it looks odd with the two white monitors, but what the heck, right?
--------------------------------------------------
"When you think that there's three things that have prevented the mainstream vista hater from regarding it as a good OS. 1) the cost of the license, 2) the hardware requirements being above that of XP 3) the stability of the drivers."

I would like to submit a 4th thing to your list and that would be; 4)There are many people who never tried Vista, or a Vista machine and opinionated based solely upon hearsay...

--------------------------------------------------
Marco...

Sorry about my last comment, I had a blast in Sturgis -- Rally week. Anyway, after looking at what you thought is suppose to be me, isn't.

Thanks for the link to google. Small world. You see I live in Spearfish and Douglas S. Taylor, the PC doctor you falsely accuse as being me, simply isn't. Oddly as it turns out, he lives in Deadwood, South Dakota. I met him when I was having all my computer problems. He is very helpful and knowledgeable. I wish all techs are like him. He turned me on to this site to find out the goings on with Microsoft.

Another thing you got wrong, is that he is not an ammature in anything, especially computers or writing short stories, he writes books, you would notice that right away if you did you research. As I found out, when I met him, he's a published author of science-fiction novels. I have his first book, and I got the handle from his second book. I use it when I call his office up.

I also decided to purchase my computer equipment and software from his company here in the Black Hills. I can see where you got mixed up though. I am a writer by hobby on a work called, Commission on Crime -- Unpublished, unfinished.

LOL, the Chronicles of Caledon; The Crimson Reaver. 1. The Chronicles of Caledon. Book Two.
The Crimson. Reaver. By Douglas S. Taylor

Nice plug for a worthless dime store novels that nobody in their right mind would ever read. Doctor Doug the windows ambulance chasing viral doctor, must just hate cleaning out the malware all the time off Windows users computers, so he is using this as a forum to plug his krappy poorly written books. Most likely written in the back on the Van.

I am going to have to agree with most of the Softies that Macs are too expensive, period. But that will not stop many people with money from switching from Windows to Mac OS X. For that we need to look a little more and compare, more than just the hardware.

There are more than one reason that people with money are moving to Mac. Let me first say, that I am not one of them, and have no plans to do so.

Computer users are sick and tired of the malware problems that Microsoft has either ignored, or only done partial fixes incrementally for so many years. Vista is a major disappointment for many users in this regard as well, so this is a huge reason for the switch. Mac OS X is about the only other computer that you can easily find preinstalled. Linux is available, but you really have to know where to look, mostly online too.

Switching to Mac, Linux, BSD, or Unix, will nearly, if not completely, eliminate the malware problems associated with Microsoft Windows, the Typhoid Mary of operating systems. It is really a pleasant experience to surf the internet without the fear that Windows users have, or to get ones email without the same problems that Windows users worry about.

Windows just is not as stable as a nix system, although XP or 2000, may have been as close as Microsoft seems to have come to it. Vista seems to have too many problems with Drivers, DRM affecting the performance, and software compatibility. When your printers and scanners no longer work with Vista, because there is not a driver, and your old XP software and games most likely do not work either, it makes it easier to think about switching.

Plus, the Mac sales people will show windows users looking at Macs, parallels, which will let them run a Windows OS (like XP) in a virtual box, and run almost all their old windows software on their new Mac, better than on a Vista machine. While they could do this by buying a new Vista machine and wiping it, replacing it with Linux, and installing one or more of the free VM's, its easier for those with the money to just go to the store and buy a Mac.

The Mac advertisements are effective, "it just works." Especially since there are too many problems with the current Vista, computer users want something better than XP, not something slower, broken, and restrictive (DRM) like Vi$ta. Not to mention, Vi$ta wants to update and reboot no matter what you are in the middle of doing.

Another problem I see with Windows, and this applies back to XP as well as Vista, is that MS made it hard to next to impossible to get your operating system on a hard drive, to move it to a new computer, by either cloning the hard drive, or just moving the old hard drive to the new computer. This was a piracy protection feature similar to WGA, that MS did. Users hate this when Windows becomes impossible to fix, or they have to do a complete reinstall of the OS and all the other software. Back in the Windows 98 days this was not a problem, neither is this a problem for linux.

So the question here is not if Mac and or Linux will continue to gain desktop market share against Windows, but how much will it gain.

The other question about the price of Macs, is will they drop? The Pystar lawsuit will be a very big factor in this, I believe. Because, Apple, is really its own monopoly, they control the hardware and the software. There is no price competition for them, unless Pystar or someone else wins in court.

@jrbrewin - well said

Too bad the usual bias BS(Joe most of all) on this site is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

@chips,
You said, "I am going to have to agree with most of the Softies that Macs are too expensive". And in general, I also agree.

But since PC stands for Personal Computer, with emphasis on Personal, I have a personal story to relate.

Our cat, a relatively small cat (at just under 9 pounds, she's small by Maine Coon standards) liked to sleep behind our 24-inch iMac. And in general, she was always very good with wires and things and never caused any problems at all.Not even with a 3-year old Windows XP machine with the nearby DSL moden, router, and wireless router cables running around.

But for some reason, something must have startled her as she slept behind the iMac. For all of a sudden, we heard an awful crash. Going into the office, we found a very remorseful cat and an iMac on the floor. That was about a 3.5 foot drop of a rather heavy 24-inch all-in-one computer.

We put the iMac back up on the desk, checked for internal rattles (there were none), pluggedg it back in, held our breath, and watched it boot up and run perfectly normally as if it was perfectly normal to jump off desks and crash to the floor every day.

And then I realized where at least part of the price premium of an iMac is spent.

And no, I don't mean to imply that this happens a lot (it's never happened to us before with any computers, and our cat is 3 years old and has never before broken anything); I don't mean to imply that the mass market needs this kind of physical robustness; I don't mean to imply that my story is anything but a PERSONAL story about one PERSONAL computer.

But if you compare Apples to Apples (pun intended!), compare a hardened PC with an Apple and perhaps the price difference starts to make a little more sense.

But yes, in general, the cheaper the better and the more that will sell, regardless of the ability to withstand massive shock.

So, you do get what you pay for with an iMac. The only question is, do you want or even need everything it has to offer. And for most people, the answer to that is a resounding No.

@Philosopher :

chips,
You said, "I am going to have to agree with most of the Softies that Macs are too expensive". And in general, I also agree.
----------------------------------------------------
Its only too expensive for me, because free linux suits all my needs. Second, for some of the reasons I stated, Mac is actually a better system than Vista, for the countless reasons that Microsoft has abandoned its users. Let me restate those reasons that Microsoft has let its users down;
Malware--MS would rather sell antivirus than provide better protection
Backing up the old hard drive and OS to the new computer--antipiracy features in XP and Vista made this much harder for the "average" user than in previous Windows like 98.
DRM, enough said there.

Mac may actually be the better value over Vista, for average users with money. People who are tired of the windows malware problems, and the instablity of Windows, including Vista. People who for one reason or not will not try Linux, then Mac may be their best hope.

I still hope, that Microsoft will wake up, and start making truely competitive OS. Instead of relieing on its preinstalled OEM monopoly stategy, and its shills. Fix the malware problem, fix the bugs, stop changing the drivers every other release, stop the lockin. And lower the price, a lot.

But then, Apple is also a sort of monopoly the way they want to control the sale of Mac OS X.

Regardless of all the Windows Vista attacks and the Macs are better stories, people are seeing through it and they are sensible. Why do I want to migrate to a different platform, strange environment (Linux, OS X) just because a little boy pretending to be a Mac on TV says so? Many people have used Windows for years and have enjoyed the benefits of a Windows PC, the investment in software and the guarantees that it offers in backward and forward compatibility gives users the unlimited potential to really do their best. Vista gives users a platform to be productive and creative out of the box. The built in search, rich applications like Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Collaboration, Windows Media Player 11, easy setup and management make Vista the only choice users need.

Investing in a Mac or trying to use Linux is just a combination of marketing/funny tv commercials from Apple and the propaganda of open source to create a temporary 1 minute feel good sensation that ultimately backfires on most users who do make that decision. With Vista on nearly 200 million systems and more persons, homes and businesses adopting it and taking advantage of its benefits in productivity, ease of use and security, the market penetration for Macs and Linux will remain stagnantly low or just stuck where there are since 'forever'.

It takes $700 to migrate to a Mac and be left unproductive and confused, it takes a download of Linux and endless migraines and frustration for as long as you want. With Vista, it takes only $89, even lower if you buy the OEM version and even better than you were on XP and be able to have the rich experiences Windows Vista provides millions of individuals around the world.

Andre Da Costa says.
"Why do I want to migrate to a different platform, strange environment (Linux, OS X) just because a little boy pretending to be a Mac on TV says so?"..........

Why not, as it will not have all the viri problems of Windows. Also, its more likely to run most Windows XP software in parallels (virtual machine) or wine, crossover (emulation) than say Vista is compatible with. Not to mention the problems that Vista has with printer drivers older than a year.

Andre, there are couple of things that should be noted about your post.

While you can do a lot of things with Vista that you can do with a Mac the user interface on a Mac is better. Period. I'm not talking about the display, colors, resolution etc. I'm talking about human-machine interface and process flow. It is simpler and more intuitive on a Mac. Period.

Mac also enjoy something Windows does not. That is Automator. A way to create repetitive tasks in a simple GUI design interface. Sure search is a great feature in Vista, but to be honest I need something like Automator a lot more. Simply because I usually spend more time working with files than searching for them.

@chips and Andre:
You both make good points and I agree with most of them. That may seem contradictory, but I regularly use all three systems (Ubuntu for desktop and laptop, Windows XP at home, and iMac at home) and find that each has its strengths and weaknesses, its quirky confusing moments and its smoothly intuitive moments.

1. All in all, the appeal of Ubuntu Linux for me is that it brings me the genius of those heady Unix development days in Bell Labs, and it does it with surprising intuitiveness and office usability, even though it's primarily a Unix/Linux/*Ix development platform. I don't do video, The Gimp suffices for my bitmap needs, and OOo draw and Inkscape meet my vector graphics needs very well. And it's solid with driver support that is getting remarkably better all the time.

1b. Linux is different from Windows. Yes, and Vista is different from XP. Whether that is good or bad is in the eye (or more likely, the brain or lack thereof) of the beholder, and not some generally applicable truth.

2. All in all, the iMac appeals to my wife because of how spectacularly it integrates her Sony HD video camera, Final Cut Express, and iDVD. Sure, Adobe's latest Creative Suite works well, but it also drains one's wallet, assuming there was anything left after a long and painful upgrade cycle to get there. Whereas Final Cut Express is very inexpensive; the iMac and Final Cut is actually the same price or cheaper than the equivalent Windows + Adobe CSS together. And both are light-years ahead of video production on Linux. Sure, there are companies that produce videos on Linux, but the high-end production companies also write most of their own video production software which is not available to the rest of us.

2b. The Mac can be maddeningly frustrating to Windows users. I'm told that it's good to see someone use a Mac who has always used Macs. Chinese is very difficult to learn; Chinese is easily and readily and intuitively learned by countless tens of millions of little toddlers and small children. Can it be difficult and easy at the same time? Sure it can! And so is the Mac.

3. All in all, Windows Vista is steadily and surely improving and with the next major update it will probably be where it should have been at its release. Yes, it is different; that is the EXACT same comment I hear about Windows (XP) users trying to move to Mac or to Linux. Different is good to some and bad to others. Different is NOT a reason to condemn or praise something, as it's more of a measure of the number of functioning brain cells and/or attitude of the commenter than of the particular platform.

3b. Vista's differences are hated by some, but most of those don't have the time, desire, or intellectual ability to embrace change and progress. Vista's differences are loved by those who recognize its strengths, like to move forward, are curious and love to learn regardless of any practical benefit.

So take your pick, and be sure to try as many as possible. I've run out of time and space to put Vista anywhere; yes, I know it's not fair to condemn Vista on technical merits without using it. And so I don't. I prefer the freedom of Linux and the original Bell Labs inspiration in the overall design of a POSIX-like system. But those are the exact same characteristics that give others severe abdominal pain. But it's not a religion, so switch and try and use what works for you.

But one thing is clear: The Linux ecosystem and Apple reach out to Microsoft's Holy Proprietary Protocols infinitely more than Windows cooperates with non-Windows clients. Some people don't mind Microsoft's monopoly; I find it unsettling, no matter how brilliantly Vista and Windows Mobile is (and will soon be evident, I admit and know).

@Andre:
Don't attack the "little boy pretending to be a Mac" in the advertisement. Microsoft doesn't hold the employment contract to every intelligent and creative person in the world, not by a long shot. And with their childish "How to Defeat a Skeleton/Witch/Dragon/Cyclops/..." series of pathetic ads, Microsoft's ads are not shining counterexamples for Apple's ads. And neither are IBM's Take Back Control ads: I find that Gil and his dysfunctional team is not really a group that IBM is helping, but is actually the arrogant idiot representation of most of the IBM software development managers and executives and their favored underlings I've ever suffered (I mean worked) with.

And yes, the Mac character may look like a little boy to you and I, but that's only because you and I are old farts and everyone is starting to look younger and younger with each passing day. As they say, I'm not over the hill, but the view sure it great!

One of the bigger lies is that the people are equal, we can have the same right and we should have the same oportunities but we are no equal because the universe is looking for diversity, the same our gene, and our tastes too.
therefore everything that fight against the diversity is condemned to
failure (at the short or long time)
To level of the software, only it's question of time and the diversity will be imposed, therefore monopolies as MS are against the laws of nature and carry in itseft the seeds of its degrading.
Ha,ha of course, this is anthropological viewpoint.

I agree Apple is overpriced, but respond to our taste for diversity, fashion, coolness, quality and stupidity too.
-------------------

CrimsonReaver :Sorry, really I want to believe you but I can not, when something seems a duck, walk as duck.... you know.
But take it easy, there is not something negative , that will be not trying some good.
Example; when the good Andre had to similar problem, linked his name to bank entity and changed personal prestige by monetary benefit... and in this case I was setting the link for you.

The Hand,

You say that Vista does not work with printers more than a year old. You know that's the most exaggerated lie I have ever heard. I have three printers that work out of the box through PnP under Vista no hitches (Parallel and USB) and these printers are more than a year old: Lexmark Z11 (2000), HP Deskjet 840c (2000), Canon i320 (2005). I have other peripherals that work just fine with the OS such as my HP Scanjet 2400. So you prove to us that you are either another example of the OpenSource Propaganda or someone who is just singing along with chorus and have never used Windows or Windows Vista. Your words will never have an impact on how technology is used because you don't use it, you are just browsing this site and decided to say something unproductive.

Gerardo: I often read the Mac Publications out there and many continue to say Automator is no more easy than recording a Visual Basic macro. The interface in OS X needs a solution like Automator simply because the Mac OS UI is flawed in both its design and implementation. Look at a basic element like the Dock, you can't tell a running application from on that is not running. Even the running application indicator in Leopard has been based for its weird change. Gimicky features like stacks that do not add any form of productivity to the users workflow because relevant information is still hidden. Flawed features like a translucent menu bar that does not increase users productivity or makes menu items hard to see or in your world decipher. Back to the Dock again, another gimmick, a 3D Dock floor that makes window reflections hard on the eyes reducing user productivity.

Vista's AERO improves productivity by providing transparency to make the content of the window be the center of focus for user working in an application window. Thumbnail previews of taskbar window buttons make it easy to switch between applications and know whats going on. There is so much in Vista that make it a better platform than the Mac. The endless amount of updates that Apple has to force out since its release is a sign of the problems in how the OS is designed. In fact Leopard is even bloated and uses more resources than ever, because it has to load code for both PowerPC and Intel because of the Universal binary architecture of the built in apps. The next in development release of OS X 'Snow Leopard' proves this, Mail 3.0 in Leopard for instance ways 300 MB's while Mail in 'Snow Leopard' weighs 100 MBs.

That proves that Apple wasn't ready with this release and their users are suffering for it. Even the GM release of Leopard was a disaster, moving files from one partition to another permanently deleted files. That's not good, Vista never faced anything like that. The only concern for Vista was the support of device drivers which was resolved in no time with more than 2 million supported products. Apple even proves that Windows must be supported on their hardware, why would they invest in development of products like BootCamp? Because they know that Windows is a welcome fact of life. I have heard of many cases where people choosing to install Windows on their Intel based Macs re-size the OS X partition down to its smallest possible giving the majority of hard disk space to Windows. So it sounds to me like the reason why Apple is getting so much attention is hardware design, not the software. With the 'free' built in apps in Vista, who needs iLife which users have to spend an additional $79 to get. And lets not forget about the recent fiasco with their MobileMe services which Company officials like Steve Jobs have admitted was a blunder.

@Andre

"I often read the Mac Publications out there and many continue to say Automator is no more easy than recording a Visual Basic macro."

Ok, lets get down to basics. I've got my Mac side by side with Vista Home Premium. I open Finder on the Mac, right click and the menu opens with an option "Automator". I select and a sub menu opens where I can "Create Workflow" or use one of the previous workflows I've created.

Now I go to my Vista machine. I open the file explorer, select a file and right click it. I can't see the option "Create new Visual Basic Script". Am I missing something?

Now I'm looking for that special something (outside my Visual Studio 2005 install) that will allow me to write a Visual Basic script. I want to rename some photos I just took and then resize them. Any idea?

I found the .NET SDK, but it is a command line utility. I can't seem to drag and drop the text there and create a script. The file explorer window has lots of options, but none to start recording a macro. I tried looking into File-New, but no luck there. No way to create a New macro.

Ok I'm in Excel 2007 now and I'm recording a Macro, but something is wrong. I select some image files, but nothing gets recorded. I opened the Microsoft Visual Basic window to inspect it. All this code comes out. Well actually it isn't much since it didn't record what I did with the files.

I fear that if I continue on this line and do try to do something with a Visual Basic Macro I'd be leveraging my developer skills. That would be unfair wouldn't it? I mean this has to be straightforward and intuitive and not require professional training.

IMHO I believe those articles you read are mistaken. It isn't easier to use Visual Basic Macros than Automator.

"Look at a basic element like the Dock, you can't tell a running application from on that is not running."

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I, like so many others certainly can tell which is running and which isn't. Don't say I can't tell the difference when it is you who can't.

"In fact Leopard is even bloated and uses more resources than ever, because it has to load code for both PowerPC and Intel because of the Universal binary architecture of the built in apps."

Excuse me? It has to load more code? How do you come to that conclusion? One thing is to have the code on the DVD to be installed and quite another thing is to actually install it and load it into memory. You are correct that Leopard is bloated. At least as far as the DVD goes. This is because not only does Leopard support universal binaries it also supports 32 and 64 bit. That's right those $129.00 I pay for a single user Leopard license gives me 32 and 64 bit support and PPC and Intel support:

% cd /Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS
% file Xcode
Xcode (for architecture ppc7400): Mach-O executable ppc
Xcode (for architecture ppc64): Mach-O 64-bit executable ppc64
Xcode (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
Xcode (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

Now can you please explain to us how and why would Leopard load into memory (RAM) code made for the PPC when only the i386 would run. Now certainly a binary application has both in the file, but that only adds to disk usage not RAM nor process load. It isn't bloat and it can be removed by using tools like Xslimmer.

"I have heard of many cases where people choosing to install Windows on their Intel based Macs re-size the OS X partition down to its smallest possible giving the majority of hard disk space to Windows. So it sounds to me like the reason why Apple is getting so much attention is hardware design, not the software."

Or just maybe its the fact that OS X can read Windows partitions, but Windows can't read OS X. So you'd like a large Windows partition to keep your data there and accessible from both systems.

"With the 'free' built in apps in Vista, who needs iLife which users have to spend an additional $79 to get."

I don't know! Why would you spend $79 for it AGAIN? When it comes included even in the lowest end laptops. Please check your facts before posting rubbish like this.

"And lets not forget about the recent fiasco with their MobileMe services which Company officials like Steve Jobs have admitted was a blunder."

Versus forgetting the PlayForSure fiasco from Microsoft? mhhhhhh......

@Andre:
Calm down before you blow a gasket! You're mostly right, but it's not a religion and there ARE other ways to run a personal computer.

The year-old printer remark wasn't a well-worded generalization. But if you think it's the biggest lie you ever heard, then you are one clueless person. Over six million people in Europe were slaughtered by their neighbors in the early 1940s because those neighbors believed an even bigger lie. So don't go with the "biggest lie" claim; it only makes you look like your research isn't worth anything.

Apple supports BootCamp, and Linux supports Wine and Samba and smbfs because Windows is a fact of life. NOT necessarily a welcome fact of life, but a fact of life nonetheless. And it proves that few other companies refuse to interoperate with the rest of the world more than Microsoft.

I can't disagree with your view of the Apple Mac user interface; it does seem a bit odd and quirky to me. But for those who have used Macs for a decade or more, it's natural and smooth and better than anything else. Whether or not it's true for everyone, Macs do get the job done for many people. You can't cite Windows market share numbers and then extrapolate relative value or productivity from them. Otherwise, as the saying goes, excrement must be good to eat because a billion flies cannot possibly be wrong.

Leopard may or may not be bloated, whatever that really means. In practice, it goes to sleep in a heartbeat and then wakes up the next day in a heartbeat. It is very solid and responsive to use, and doesn't feel bloated at all. Yes, it is a bit quirky to a long-time Windows, Linux/Gnome, and Unix/CDE user, but definitely not bloated. And the reverse is true; Windows is quirky to a long-time Apple user.

Safari definitely has a known problem with losing cookies, but Firefox 3 runs fine on the Mac, and it's the only browser I run on Windows and Linux too. (If only there was a "Firefox 3 Lite" for the Blackberry.... *sigh*)

I don't know about any MobileMe issues. As you may have just guessed, I am in the world of the 2G Blackberry, which is yet again another quirky interface (you don't really close some apps, they just keep running and you only really switch to them most times), but it's a quirkiness born of the need for small size, large function, and gentle battery use. And so the time and effort spent learning its quirks has been paid back in remarkable ease of use and long battery life. The trade of ease of learning to obtain ease of use was well worth it.

Andre Da Costa : wrote

"It takes $700 to migrate to a Mac and be left unproductive and confused, it takes a download of Linux and endless migraines and frustration for as long as you want. "
-------------------------------------------------
Untrue, one can buy a Mac with Tiger OSX on E-bay for around $100.

Ubuntu Linux 8.04 was downloaded in 15 minutes via bit torrent and only took 20 minutes to install and another 5 minutes to setup wireless on the laptop (Atheros 5007). And it runs faster than the Vista with 1/4th the RAM usage. And yes I can watch my DVDs, listen to MP3's and watch and listen to streaming content, email, instant message, print, everything.

--------------------------------------------------
Andre Da Costa : wrote

"With Vista, it takes only $89, even lower if you buy the OEM version and even better than you were on XP and be able to have the rich experiences Windows Vista provides millions of individuals around the world."
-------------------------------------------------
I don't know anyone or heard of anyone who bought Vista to install their computer. On the other hand there are many who have bought XP Pro and wiped Vista off their computer...its still going on yet. Just walk into a computer refurb/repair shop and ask some questions...you might get a much different perspective.

As far as the rich experience...the shops are getting rich replacing XP over Vista.

It doesn't matter which version of Windows is chosen, the point is Linux is still and its stagnant 1% and will remain that way for a lifetime.

Andre, I didn't know you had plans to die so young.