How I Came to Get a PC and Not a Mac
|
News Commentary. Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" commercials have generated lots of Mac vs. Windows PC debate. Surely there can't be enough, so I'd like to generate even more. Quite unexpectedly, I'm a PC. |
I don't buy new computers very often, and for a long time I slightly favored Macs over Windows PCs. So no one perhaps is more surprised than me that my now four-month old laptop is a Sony and not an Apple. I found my decision process to be similar to Lauren and Giampaolo, the protagonists of the first two Microsoft "Laptop Hunters" commercials. Microsoft got something right about the buying process, something many people on the Mac side of the debate are overlooking.
Mac defenders have glommed on to pricing as the primary criteria behind both ads, $1,000 for the first and $1,500 for the other. But both Lauren and Giampaolo clearly state other criteria beyond price. My budget was higher. I was willing to spend as much as $2,000 on a new laptop, which largely eliminated the price premium typically associated with Macs as an eliminating factor. My choice came down to priorities that the Sony laptop met that no Mac in the price range could meet. The Sony wasn't an easy purchase. I had to shop around before unexpectedly finding the right configuration within my budget.
Unlike Lauren and Giampaolo, operating system played into my decision-making process. Microsoft's commercials quite purposely don't mention Windows. How can they? Mac enthusiasts, reviewers, analysts and pretty much anybody else who has ever used Mac OS X Leopard and Windows Vista would wag fingers of accusation. Vista is vastly inferior to Leopard and predecessor Tiger. There, I said it.
Mac vs. PC: Going Both Ways
Before writing one more word, I want to preface about operating systems. I'm not a religious computer user, meaning Mac OS and Windows are just tools to me. I don't religiously defend either platform. I'm neither Mac fanatic or Windows fanboy. I always use both operating systems, but still must choose one over the other as primary. I've flopped between platforms for more than a decade.
In December 1998, I bought a Bondi Blue iMac on a whim, from the now defunct CompUSA in Rockville, Md. The computer was cute, but the operating system got me more. Mac OS X 8.5 solved most of the problems I had with Windows 98 (crashes, performance) and Windows NT 4 (app and driver compatibility). I stayed with Mac OS until Microsoft released Windows 2000 in February 2000. I switched back and forth between Mac OS and Windows until Apple released Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001. What a disaster. Apple launched Mac OS X with no optical drive support, among other problems, and with few native applications. I dumped the Mac within weeks, running Windows XP beta instead.
The day before Microsoft launched Windows XP, in October 2001, I gave the Macintosh another try. A month earlier, Apple released Mac OS X 10.1, and it looked good. Over the next three years, I regularly switched between Mac OS X and Windows every couple of months. Major reason: Work. I covered Apple and Microsoft and needed to be familiar with both platforms. But by 2005, I found myself using the Mac with increased regularity. Apple's operating system had easily surpassed Windows, for stability, usability and performance—and there were plenty of Mac applications. But in early 2006, I made the first of several attempts to run several Windows Vista betas full time. I didn't find Vista be even remotely usable in production until the release candidate issued later that year.
I wasn't as sour on Windows Vista as so many of its critics. Vista isn't a bad operating system, it just has some idiosyncrasies. In May 2007, I abandoned the Mac for Windows, which lasted perhaps six weeks. I switched between the two operating systems as primary every month or so thereafter. But during my off-work time, I almost exclusively used a Mac. All that changed in January 2009, when I bought my first Windows computer in years. Except for a few weeks hiatus to test iLife `09, I've been using Windows as my primary operating system. Windows 7 is the reason.
I don't write about everything I learn about Microsoft on this blog. Through unnamed sources (and not from Microsoft) I got enough early information about Windows 7 to expect it to be the Vista that should have shipped in December 2006. If not for this expectation, formed in December 2008, I might well have settled for less hardware features and bought a MacBook or MacBook Pro. Apple should worry about many potential Windows-to-Mac switchers coming to similar conclusion: Windows 7 is the better Vista.
Buying by Compromise
What I find missing in the Mac vs. PC debate generated by the "Laptop Hunters" commercials: Compromise. Buyers with limited budgets must make compromises and they rarely get exactly what they want. The ads do show this kind of decision process, even if briefly. My laptop buying would follow a series of perceived and some actual compromises to get as much of what I wanted within a given budget.
My computer shopping started the week after Christmas. I would buy the computer that best met my hardware criteria, whether Mac or Windows PC. What I wanted: a small but powerful portable with 13.3-inch display and weighing less than 3.5 pounds (1.6kg), but 4.5 pounds could be acceptable; 3GB-4GB RAM, 256MB dedicated graphics; 320GB hard drive (250GB OK); LED display; 1600-by-1200 or 1050 resolution; and attractive body.
What I considered outside the criteria: $1,599 MacBook or $1,999 MacBook Pro. Both computers appealed for their features, design and performance, and I could run Windows 7, too. But I couldn't get beyond the Pro's heft, and the screen resolution wasn't enough on either. I sidelined but didn't eliminate the Macs during my early shopping process. I quickly narrowed the decision down to MacBook Air and the Sony VAIO VGN-Z590 and just as quickly eliminated the Air. I had tested the computer, which I found to be underpowered. Slow performance and hard drive size (80GB), along with 1280-by-800 resolution, took Air out of the running.
I wanted the VAIO, and it was a purchase being made on faith that Windows 7 would meet my expectations for performance, stability and usability. But I was ready to take the MacBook, if I couldn't find the right Z590 configuration within my budget. The 4.5-pound MacBook, while heavier than my desired weight, had an appealing configuration: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (1066MHz front-side bus), 13.3-inch LED-backlit display with 1280-by-800 resolution, 2GB DDR3 memory (expandable to 4GB), 256MB nVidia GeForce 9400M (DDR3) graphics, 250GB SATA hard drive (5,400 rpm), double-layer DVD burner, 802.11n wireless, backlit keyboard, Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, 10/100/1000 Ethernet, two USB ports, one Mini DisplayPort and Mac OS X 10.5.
For $1,699, $100 more than the MacBook, the entry-level Z590 model tempted. But I would have to settle for 2GB of RAM, 128MB dedicated graphics and screen resolution of 1366 x 768. The Z590 model I really wanted sold, with 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (with 6MB L2 cache), 256MB graphics and 1600-by-900 resolution, for about $2,800—way out of my budget. I either would settle for less VAIO or spend less to get the MacBook.
Then a friend found a reseller I'd never heard of, PCNation, which had just about what I wanted for $1,899: Sony VAIO VGN-Z590, with 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, a 13.1-inch LED backlit display with 1600-by-900 resolution, 256MB nVidia GeForce 9300M GS graphics, 3GB of DDR3 memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD burner, fingerprint reader, Wi-Fi and Sprint 3G modem. The processor cache was only 3MB but I would get 1066MHz front-side bus, which wasn't a feature on the lower-cost Z590.
Screen resolution wasn't at the top of my criteria list when I started shopping, but it later came to be. All other considerations pivoted on the one feature. I considered the 15-inch MacBook Pro, which has 1400 x 900 resolution. It was close enough to what I wanted but not near enough to justify a larger and heavier laptop. If my friend hadn't found the $1,899 Z590, I probably would have gone for the MacBook, running Mac OS X and Window 7 dual-boot. The $1,699 Z590's 1366-by768 resolution wasn't enough more than the MacBook's 1280-by-800 resolution to make up for the VAIO's lesser graphics memory and slower system memory and front-side bus than the Apple laptop.
During this stage of the decision process, I reconsidered MacBook Air, for $1,799. The newer model has same graphics as the MacBook, but the 80GB hard drive and 1.6GHz processor put me off.
The $1,899 Z590 changed everything. Within my criteria: Display resolution, system memory and hard drive size—all better than the MacBook. Equal to the MacBook: Graphics memory, processor speed, L2 cache size, front-side bus speed, memory speed and LED-backlit rather than LCD capability.
Difference: Windows 7
Both "Laptop Hunters" commercials stirred debate in part because the Windows PC buyers paid less than what they could have for comparable Macs. I spent more to get a Windows laptop than I would have for a good-enough Mac notebook. Other criteria mattered more than price.
Microsoft's commercials take Windows out of the decision-making process. As I explained earlier, almost certainly on purpose. Windows 7 took the operating system out of my decision-making process, because I expected it to be much better than Vista and as good as if not better than Mac OS X. I probably wouldn't have shopped for a Windows laptop, if not for Seven.
Four months later, I am more than satisfied with both decisions: Buying the VAIO laptop and taking a chance on Windows 7. The Seven public beta is speedy and functional. Sure, there are some glitches but nothing more than what should be expected from beta code. I haven't had this much fun using a computer since when I carted home that iMac more than a decade ago. I'm more productive, too.
That's with beta software. I can only expect better from the release candidate and final code.
Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" commercials are paving the way for Windows 7. The time will come when Microsoft talks about Windows as part of the buying process—perhaps the biggest reason for choosing a PC. Apple has lapped up after Windows Vista for years, long before it released. Windows 7 won't as easily give up sales to Macintosh. In February I wrote about year-over-year U.S. retail PC gains against massive Mac sale declines: "The Windows Empire Strikes Back." Times are changing.
I love the Mac, but I must make her my mistress and take Windows 7 as the new bride. No one is more surprised than me.
I'm a PC, and I just can't believe it.
Note: Musical inspiration for this post supplied by Hey Monday, Jimmy Eat World, The Maine, OneRepublic and Sum 41.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at gmail.com.]
Related Posts:
- 'I'm a PC Because I'm Really Picky', Microsoft Watch, April 5, 2009
- Lauren Is Right: Macs Cost More Than PCs, Microsoft Watch, March 30, 2009
- Microsoft Shatters Mac Pricing Myths, Apple Watch, March 30, 2009
- 'I'm Just Not Cool Enough to Be a Mac Person', Microsoft Watch, March 26, 2009
- 'I'm a PC' Marketing Pays Off for Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, March 16, 2009
- Start Windows Phone Marketing, Microsoft Watch, March 13, 2009
- Bring on the Ads, Apple, Apple Watch, March 10, 2009
- New Mac Pricing Is Bold, Brassy and Risky, Apple Watch, March 3, 2009
- If PC Sales Are Down, Can Macs Go Up?, Apple Watch, March 2, 2009
- The Rookies Turn Eight, Microsoft Watch, March 1, 2009
- The Windows Empire Strikes Back, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 19, 2009
- Mac Sales Fall Below PCs, Apple Watch, Feb. 18, 2009
Comments (85)
simply link-bait-tastic!
Posted by whatever | April 6, 2009 2:34 AM
So now you have an iMac AND a PC. How does that make you a PC?
Posted by bigdeal | April 6, 2009 2:51 AM
My 11 year old son has a MacBook with both OS X and Windows 7 on it. He uses Windows for some Windows-only games, but finds OS X far more intuitive and uses it for everything else.
Personally I use a MacBook Air with both operating systems on. Although Windows 7 is much better than its predecessors, it's extremely clunky compared to OS X.
Posted by Oohmyygoood | April 6, 2009 3:03 AM
mmm...computer regression, you dont work for PC world do you?
Think i'll stay in the future with my sexy new Mac Book ta!
Posted by Garry Wilson | April 6, 2009 3:06 AM
My 11 year old son has a MacBook with both OS X and Windows 7 on it. He uses Windows 7 for some Windows-only games, but finds OS X far more intuitive and uses it for everything else.
Personally I use a MacBook Air with both operating systems on. Although Windows 7 is much better than its predecessors, it's extremely clunky compared to OS X.
Posted by Oohmyygoood | April 6, 2009 3:06 AM
mmm...computer regression, you dont work for PC world do you?
Think i'll stay in the future with my sexy new Mac Book ta!
Posted by Garry Wilson | April 6, 2009 3:06 AM
My Uncles told me quite a long time ago that people choose cars based on their personality, then justify their choice with metrics and a selection of facts. That's what appears to be happening here.
If you are looking for metrics to justify your choice of a PC, a careful selection will provide you with what you need.
Posted by Bill | April 6, 2009 3:19 AM
How you can say one OS is better? Better at what? I left the mac because it wouldn't run the software I needed it to, so XP was "better" for me. It's all about the apps--you know, those things people actually buy computers to run. Need to run Final Cut Pro? Then a Mac is better for you. Need one of the millions of little 3rd party plugins/converters/utility apps that make easier? well then you're generally screwed if you don't have some flavor of Windows. Message boards are full of Mac Guys begging for ports of software I use constantly. But asking them the obvious question of why they bought a computer that won't run software they need is like insulting their religion. I don't get it.
What I find funny is that the single biggest legitimate benefit of a mac--fewer security concerns--isn't even by design. Malware/virus writers just don't bother targeting macs because the user base is so small. For that reason alone I often recommend Apples to novice users, and they love them. But when I hear Apple fanboys going on about how secure their macs are I just want to gag. "Security through obscurity" may mean fewer headaches for peolple who can't handle running anti-virus once a week, but it should not be mistaken for actual security.
Posted by JohnC | April 6, 2009 3:38 AM
So Joe. You review loads but what do you actually do with your computers?
McD
Posted by McDave | April 6, 2009 3:59 AM
@JohnC:
As a newly converted Linux user, I can tell you why people complain when their OS can't run the programs they need to run: there shouldn't be any reason for them not to. Commercial programs should all be 100% self-contained and portable, and the only reason they aren't is because Microsoft's near absolute market share allows programmers to think they can get lazy. Sadly, despite Vista's huge compatibility issues, this illusion has yet to be shattered. Maybe software companies will wake up after Microsoft's next OS kernel breaks all their Vista/Win 7 applications, but I doubt it.
Posted by Fred | April 6, 2009 4:28 AM
If Apple reconsiders their long term strategy to drop price by 30 percent from laptop, desktops, to applications, they will have a huge market share.
Posted by Netteligent | April 6, 2009 4:44 AM
GO GO GO!!! Yeah!
>;-)
-Wz
Posted by Wizard | April 6, 2009 4:53 AM
GO GO GO!!! Yeah!
>;-)
-Wz
Posted by Wizard | April 6, 2009 4:54 AM
I'm in the same position as the author. Apple's latest offerings no longer meet my needs and qualify more as consumer and pro-sumer devices rather than professional. I have used Macs explicitly since 1998, but when Windows7 and Snow Leopard are released I will be seriously looking at buying a PC for the first time. I will be buying on the basis of hardware and the OS will only have to work without too much aggravation. From what I hear, it sounds like Windows7 may just do the trick this time.
@Netteligent
Apple will never gain a large marketshare unless they release OSX to third parties. The reason is simple market dynamics; only a small percentage of buyers will buy Canon cameras, but CCD licenses the image sensor technology on all cameras. Buyers want differentiation from their friends and neighbours.
Posted by Brau | April 6, 2009 5:38 AM
choose the one that you're satisfied with, better OS or worse OS make sense in general but not for individuals. i choose, i like, i'm satisfied.
Posted by ccc | April 6, 2009 5:39 AM
I bought a Samsung laptop recently - dual core, led backlit screen, discreet graphics, super light and fast. On it, Vista runs great; 45 seconds to boot and has not crashed in the 2 months I've had it. My old XP laptop crashed all the time. Macs don't run some of the software I use, which means I would need to buy Windows and double up on some software. At this point, a Mac would cost more than twice as much as the $850 I paid.
I think Apple is very elegant and well though out...and very expensive. After 15 years, Microsoft has finally came out with the advertising campaign they should have always run - Macs are too expensive.
Posted by Pookie | April 6, 2009 6:28 AM
I bought a Samsung laptop recently - dual core, led backlit screen, discreet graphics, super light and fast. On it, Vista runs great; 45 seconds to boot and has not crashed in the 2 months I've had it. My old XP laptop crashed all the time. Macs don't run some of the software I use, which means I would need to buy Windows and double up on some software. At this point, a Mac would cost more than twice as much as the $850 I paid.
I think Apple is very elegant and well though out...and very expensive. After 15 years, Microsoft has finally came out with the advertising campaign they should have always run - Macs are too expensive.
Posted by Pookie | April 6, 2009 6:28 AM
I bought a Samsung laptop recently - dual core, led backlit screen, discreet graphics, super light and fast. On it, Vista runs great; 45 seconds to boot and has not crashed in the 2 months I've had it. My old XP laptop crashed all the time. Macs don't run some of the software I use, which means I would need to buy Windows and double up on some software. At this point, a Mac would cost more than twice as much as the $850 I paid.
I think Apple is very elegant and well though out...and very expensive. After 15 years, Microsoft has finally came out with the advertising campaign they should have always run - Macs are too expensive.
Posted by Pookie | April 6, 2009 6:31 AM
Microsoft is a software company, Apple is hardware AND software. I use both but prefer Macs. Both have vested interests, but instead of looking at the price you pay at the store, factor in the costs over 5 years and I bet Apple hardware is closer. I have older Apple hardware that is still rock solid after almost 10 years of daily use.
Posted by Who cares? | April 6, 2009 7:45 AM
I own two MAC's, and I'm way too cool to own a PC.
Oh wait ... I do own a PC, two in fact and I have a Linux box and I run a bunch of VM's of WIN2K and Linux and WIN7.
So what does this mean ... nothing .... this nonsense of PC versus MAC is simply to generate discussion and get people arguing and increase readership of Joe's blog.
Who cares what your run! Hey Joe, how about focusing on whats coming down from the vendors this year rather than focusing on starting arguments.
This promises to be one of the most interesting years from the viewpoint of product delivery than we have seen in a number of years.
Posted by DougE | April 6, 2009 8:00 AM
"I love the Mac, but I must make her my mistress and take Windows 7 as the new bride."
You know that a Mac is a piece of hardware and Windows 7 is a piece of software? You really need both to actually do anything. Did you mean "I love OSX"?
You should be comparing Windows 7 to OSX Snow Leopard, they are going to be out at about the same time and I can see Apple setting a new bar. I remember the same happened with Tiger/Vista and then Leopard came out and blew it out of the water.
I really do not think that you, or most other PC buyers have enough knowledge to compare laptops based upon raw figures alone. There should be standard benchmarks so that we can easily compare 2 systems. DDR3 is way faster than DDR2 - yet you do not mention them at all. Personally I think OSX makes better use of a processor and RAM than Windows, and Windows loves to thrash your hard drive.
I am also wondering why you never try out Linux? Is it because you write about MS and Apple so you ignore the rest of the market? You can try WUBI if you are really scared about burning CDs or creating partitions.
http://wubi-installer.org/
Posted by billybob | April 6, 2009 8:03 AM
Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder. After a quarter century of the Windows experience I pulled the plug.
Posted by AJSH | April 6, 2009 8:06 AM
Why didn't you check Dell's website. I just recently purchased a 2.53 GHz 1033 FSB, 4GB DDR3 at 1067 MHz RAM, 512MB graphics, 1920x1080 reslolution 16" screen, 500 GB 7200 RPM hard drive all for about $1500.
Posted by Shayne | April 6, 2009 8:24 AM
My biggest problem with this is how you are holding your breath for Windows. I've done this too many times and it has backfired. Microsoft makes some great products but their OS has completely lost my trust.
I just don't believe Microsoft is looking out for the consumer. They've failed me enough, and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Posted by Greg | April 6, 2009 8:46 AM
You "expected it to be much better than Vista?" That's an odd thing to say. After the release of Windows 2000 (still the best version of Windows Microsoft released), I fully expected future releases to be better. When XP was released a year later, I came to realize that wouldn't be the case (and like Microsoft, we'll pretend Windows ME never existed, which, although another iteration of their old platform, was released AFTER XP).
Although XP is praised as one of the best releases, reality is that XP was worse until around SP2 or SP3 (depending on your own experience, for me it was SP3). 2000, on the other hand, I was using in pre-release for a while until it was officially released. It was a superior OS despite the lack of support for hardware and such. I found ways to work around some of the limitations (which were minor) in order to use the system that I found superior to all other releases. I skipped Win98 series entirely.
Until it's released, I can't expect anything from Microsoft. I can hope it will be better, but simply watching the fact that they are still adding new features to a system that's suppose to be out of Beta frightens me. I mean they released a Beta that people like a lot more than Vista, and instead of polishing it and removing the bugs to release to the public, they add 30+ new features to it. Microsoft seems to work under the old engineering rule of "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features."
Posted by Kavey | April 6, 2009 8:47 AM
Is this a delayed April fools joke?
Posted by Robert | April 6, 2009 8:54 AM
I use PCs at work and a Mac for my graphic design and music. My PC here at work, though new when I started, now runs funky and crashes for unknown reasons. Not to say you don't get the same thing on a Mac, but on the PC it happens frequently.
On the other hand, the iMac I purchased 4 years and 2 OS updates ago, still runs like champ and boots up fine. You get what you pay for.
Posted by Nogui | April 6, 2009 9:06 AM
JohnC is absolutely right and I have pointed out this fact many times before. People buy applications not OS and when it comes to applications (availability, variety and pricing) Windows wins hands down.
Posted by evan | April 6, 2009 9:12 AM
So my take away from this? PCs are for those who are willing to compromise. Got it.
Posted by Neal Campbell | April 6, 2009 9:21 AM
Why don't Microsoft advertise all those apps that people cannot do without? >10% of people seem to find that they can do without them.
I would love to know what I am missing that does not have an alternative on Linux or OSX.
Posted by billybob | April 6, 2009 9:22 AM
Wow. Not a single requirement based on what you actually want the computer for.
Do you know anything about a sensible shopping process? Should you be reviewer if every single criteria you apply is completely arbitrary?
Posted by Jon | April 6, 2009 9:37 AM
Some day, get someone to install Linux/KDE for you. Toss in WINE while you're at it.
The first "whatever" had it. This is just link bait by a shill for commercial interests.
Boring.
Posted by Another whatever | April 6, 2009 10:43 AM
Some day, get someone to install Linux/KDE for you. Toss in WINE while you're at it.
The first "whatever" had it. This is just link bait by a shill for commercial interests.
Boring.
Posted by Another whatever | April 6, 2009 10:44 AM
Windows is vastly superior to OSX. OSX is a narrow special purpose OS that is engineered to run on a short range of computer equipment.
Windows is a dynamic operating system that will run most every desktop, laptop, netbook and server being built today. It scalable, customizable, provides several wide open platforms for programing and scripting and is fun to use and robust in just about every environment.
OSX uses the security by obscurity model. It's creators cross their fingers and hope the malware writers will never pay attention. When enough patches have gathered, they create a service pack, call it a new OS and charge for it. Combined with the hardware, its looks are robust enough for envirnoments such as a photgraphy studio or print shop, or as a set decoration in an MTV studio or a movie stage.
Microsoft hardens its OS. They've done year long code reviews for the sake of security only and they've developed a quick and automatic patch system for their OS. They do not charge for their updates and service packs. Security is a priority in their coding.
As far as PC vs Mac? The Mac hardware (the Power PC platform etc.) was so sad that they ended up abandoning it for the PC platform. Good-by Power PC!
lol
So Apple adopts the PC's usual CPUs (Intel), hack the BIOS so as to make sure Windows can't run natively, hack an "Apple" version of the obscure BSD OS, and voila they offer you the Apple Mac. Wow elegant.
Posted by Clump | April 6, 2009 11:01 AM
BS heaped on top of BS seems to be the MS mantra:
An actual comparison of what the "tech savvy" gut bought and a Macbook, but let's not let reality get in the way of a PC fanboy wet dream.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/04/04/microsofts-latest-ad-attacks-mac-aesthetics-computing-power/
Posted by JS | April 6, 2009 11:37 AM
Clump : Your entire post shows you do not know what you are talking about. Windows cannot scale at all. The version of Azure Windows is totally different to Windows Mobile, just because they have the same brand does not make them the same thing. I am surprised you used 'dynamic' rather than 'rich' to describe Windows.
Look at the top 500 computers and tell me how many run Windows. I do not see Windows Vista running on netbooks with an ARM processor either.
This quote is classic
"hack the BIOS so as to make sure Windows can't run natively"
You do know how EFI is much better than BIOS and that Apple provide software specifically so that you can run Windows on a Mac?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html
It is Windows that is slow to adopt new technology, rather than Apple locking it down. Apparently they support it from Vista SP1 and above. Linux has been able to boot from EFI since 2000. Taking 8 years to implement a standard is not 'dynamic'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface
At the moment, hardware manufacturers make their hardware and drivers to work with Windows, not the other way around.
Posted by billybob | April 6, 2009 11:43 AM
"Windows is a dynamic operating system that will run most every desktop, laptop, netbook and server being built today. It scalable, customizable, provides several wide open platforms for programing and scripting and is fun to use and robust in just about every environment."
OSX is UNIX...as for Windows well that's another story:
http://rixstep.com/2/20090326,00.shtml
Posted by Splif | April 6, 2009 11:44 AM
If as you say you need to test both Mac OS and Windows, a Mac should have been the de facto choice for you, shouldn't it? You can't run Mac OS on your new PC, when you could have run both both Windows and Mac OS on say a MacBook Pro. Instead you have two computers, and I'm ready to bet your Mac does indeed run Windows.
The very fact that a Mac can run both Mac OS and Windows should actually make it a better choice for many, many people. But it doesn't appear to be the case. Why? Maybe you could write about that and enlighten us?
And what were you saying about Macs solving the application compatibility issues you were having with NT 4? Do I understand correctly that you were the one and only owner of a Mac that could run Win98 applications and drivers that wouldn't run in NT 4? Or did you mean that you solved application compatibility issues by... switching to a completely different set of applications (how much did you pay for the new licences?)
You say compromise is missing from the new ads. If that was the case, so what? I don't hear you say that it's missing from Apple's Mac commercials. Plus it's not missing, those two commercials are all about that: they both would love a Mac, but they can't afford it. Then they select the PC that best matches what they ideally want while still within their budget. What is compromise if not precisely that? Heck, you say it yourself, that's the way most people buy a computer these days.
Posted by David | April 6, 2009 11:48 AM
If as you say you need to test both Mac OS and Windows, a Mac should have been the de facto choice for you, shouldn't it? You can't run Mac OS on your new PC, when you could have run both both Windows and Mac OS on say a MacBook Pro. Instead you have two computers, and I'm ready to bet your Mac does indeed run Windows.
The very fact that a Mac can run both Mac OS and Windows should actually make it a better choice for many, many people. But it doesn't appear to be the case. Why? Maybe you could write about that and enlighten us?
And what were you saying about Macs solving the application compatibility issues you were having with NT 4? Do I understand correctly that you were the one and only owner of a Mac that could run Win98 applications and drivers that wouldn't run in NT 4? Or did you mean that you solved application compatibility issues by... switching to a completely different set of applications (how much did you pay for the new licences?)
You say compromise is missing from the new ads. If that was the case, so what? I don't hear you say that it's missing from Apple's Mac commercials. Plus it's not missing, those two commercials are all about that: they both would love a Mac, but they can't afford it. Then they select the PC that best matches what they ideally want while still within their budget. What is compromise if not precisely that? Heck, you say it yourself, that's the way most people buy a computer these days.
Posted by David | April 6, 2009 11:49 AM
If as you say you need to test both Mac OS and Windows, a Mac should have been the de facto choice for you, shouldn't it? You can't run Mac OS on your new PC, when you could have run both both Windows and Mac OS on say a MacBook Pro. Instead you have two computers, and I'm ready to bet your Mac does indeed run Windows.
The very fact that a Mac can run both Mac OS and Windows should actually make it a better choice for many, many people. But it doesn't appear to be the case. Why? Maybe you could write about that and enlighten us?
And what were you saying about Macs solving the application compatibility issues you were having with NT 4? Do I understand correctly that you were the one and only owner of a Mac that could run Win98 applications and drivers that wouldn't run in NT 4? Or did you mean that you solved application compatibility issues by... switching to a completely different set of applications (how much did you pay for the new licences?)
You say compromise is missing from the new ads. If that was the case, so what? I don't hear you say that it's missing from Apple's Mac commercials. Plus it's not missing, those two commercials are all about that: they both would love a Mac, but they can't afford it. Then they select the PC that best matches what they ideally want while still within their budget. What is compromise if not precisely that? Heck, you say it yourself, that's the way most people buy a computer these days.
Posted by David | April 6, 2009 11:50 AM
Apologies for the multiple posts.
Posted by David | April 6, 2009 11:51 AM
Who gives a monkeys about the OS - both OSX and Seven are pretty stable and fast, I run OSX because of the apps I use - final cut pro and logic studio, I run seven because of windows only apps.
I bought an iMac simply because I can run both OS's rather than a generic intel / amd that would only run MS
Posted by steve | April 6, 2009 11:56 AM
Advertising aside (and really, it SHOULD be placed aside by any of us with enough general computer knowledge to know better what we want), I have to say I'm still buying Apple computers right now.
I've taken a look at the Windows 7 beta builds, and although I see some of the biggest annoyances in Vista are being addressed or re-vamped (annoying gadget bar down the right side of the screen is getting changed to a copy-cat of the OS X "dashboard" concept, etc.), it still suffers from its roots in bad design choices made early on in Windows development history. (The concept of a Windows "registry" causes people all manner of grief. The fact that Windows software assumed for so long that people were running as full "administrator" rights all the time is going to haunt them for years to come.)
Meanwhile, Apple's upcoming "Snow Leopard" release has a lot of promise with the "grand central" technologies going into it. Implemented properly, it may mean their OS actually makes better use of today's multi-core processors than anything else on the market.
Computer hardware is only as good as the software it runs, ultimately. The two have a symbiotic relationship. Apple sells the two as a paired up "combo". Microsoft can't, because they don't even make their own hardware.
I recently strayed from Macs to buy a new HP TouchSmart PC for my "home office". So far, I've been VERY unimpressed compared to an Apple iMac, despite the iMac not having the touch-screen capabilities of the HP. The fact is, the touch-screen is more gimmick than benefit. If you use it much, you just wind up with fingerprints all over that you have to clean off -- and your hand quickly gets tired reaching straight out in front of you to control things on the screen.
The build quality of the HP is notably worse than anything Apple assembles, too. I took it apart to upgrade its internal SATA hard drive to a larger one, and the plastic snaps that hold the back on the case nearly broke off. (I think I did break one of them, as careful as I tried to be.) The USB ports were placed on the side, instead of the back of the machine like current iMacs do, too. That means your cables stick out the sides and look ugly, AND can even get in the way of things like a desktop scanner's lid, if it's sitting close to the machine.
Posted by Tom W | April 6, 2009 12:14 PM
As much as Mercedes would love to sell EVERYONE a merc, Mercedes owners don't want to see everyone owning one, let alone driving the same, elitest, brand.
But what MS should do in their next commercial with the Redhead, is have her spill something...on her Dell Latitude. And let just go, Oh Well, I have Dell Complete care...do you?
Applecare doesn't cover accidental damage. Period. So you spend another $500+ for your laptop and you drop it or spill something...better start saving...
Oh, and I'm a Mac, not a PC...
Posted by UncleSpeddy | April 6, 2009 12:20 PM
umm, first of all, the I'm a PC or a Mac, well you got that wrong just like microsoft! The I'm a mac commercials made by Apple was referring to computers not people so… If you a PC you need to go to a psychiatrist.
@ dudes who recommends linux to any user
Linux is not for everyone still needs more works and more commercial apps, not alternative that give you only 50% of what you need.
Posted by Arnaldo Capo | April 6, 2009 12:27 PM
As you know, Joe, I'm a Mac to Linux switcher (with over 20 years Mac use under my belt). But I'm also a tinkerer who's curious about OS's, so I've been running Windows 7 as my main system for a month or two.
Count me amongst the impressed. Microsoft has actually applied some real serious effort to the user interface design, taken some of Apple's ideas, and made them better. That it's much, much faster than Vista is a bonus.
Mac fans should take a serious look at 7 - not because it will persuade them to switch, but because its the first serious competition from Microsoft in quite some time.
Posted by Ian Betteridge | April 6, 2009 12:38 PM
UncleSpeddy : 99/100 people who have a Mac will also have home contents insurance which covers for accidental damage. The Dell upsell is just there to sell you extra insurance that you don't really need.
Most home insurance policies specifically cover laptops when you are out of the house.
Posted by billybob | April 6, 2009 12:39 PM
Seems Joe is trying to get more traffic for his column...
Apple is clearly aiming for a specific market: high-end products that are designed to be simple. They are not as many options for customization. They do not have as many software titles. But Macs are also easier to setup and maintain - antivirus, antispyware, and backups.
Windows 7 appears to close some of the gap in ease-of-use. It will be interesting to see how Apple will respond.
Posted by Greg Glockner | April 6, 2009 12:46 PM
Apple has always been a boutique business that appeals to a certain demographic. If you're on a budget, Apple is not for you. Period. End of story.
Apple has always marketed their products (iPod, Mac) on the basis of user experience and image (the cool factor). They're easy to use. They look cool. And you pay a premium.
To be sure, Microsoft is closing the gap regarding user experience. But Mac remains easier to use.
Understanding consumer psychology is key. Apple is selling a positive user experience. Owning an Apple product makes you feel good about yourself. It's cool. It's easy.
Microsoft's latest campaign is purely utilitarian. Getting a well-spec'd, less expensive computer makes you a PC. Fine, Joe, you're a PC.
Microsoft is selling a commodity (Windows on PC). Apple is selling a way to feel good about yourself. They're selling an image. And who doesn't want to feel good?
That's why Apple will continue to be successful, especially after we pull ourselves out of this recession. You have to understand human psychology.
Posted by Richard | April 6, 2009 1:03 PM
I bought a Mac 2 years ago after getting tired of my Windows machine constantly ceasing up, crashing etc etc. This speaking as a developer and Linux user as well. My Mac laptop effectively never is shut off and runs basically like a server; I don't needs antivirus, antispam, antispyware, etc etc. I don't get cease ups, shut downs, etc. I play Warcraft just like before. And I can do all my development just like before.
As for price? When you compare an EQUIVALENT machine with EQUIVALENT hardware (that means same front side bus and same type of RAM and CD drive, etc), the Mac is often equally priced. In fact, Dells and HP's are often more expensive.
All in all, I save the Microsoft tax, the antivirus tax, the antispyware tax, and the annotance of crashes and cease up and all other instabilities that Windows brings with it. Yes yes, there is always a Windows fanboy out there that say 'that never happens to me' but it happens to 98% of the rest of the populace hence Windows is unstable and unreliable and unsecure... unlike Linux and Mac
Posted by Xeno | April 6, 2009 1:22 PM
@Arnaldo Capo:
While I agree Linux isn't right for everyone I would like to suggest that more people actually give it a chance. Using WINE (windows compatibility layer) and DOSBox any programs I got to run in Vista also run in Ubuntu, along with a few programs that wouldn't run in Vista as well. The biggest "issue" with Linux is that it's not an OS for people that don't want to think about their OS. However given the rising popularity of malware ignoring your operating system is no longer a safe thing to do, regardless of whether you're a Windows, Mac, or Linux user.
Posted by Fred | April 6, 2009 2:01 PM
The 'I'm a Mac' guy's name is "Brandon" now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lL2F6mw9pk
And he promotes the iPhone as well as Macs. Way to go 'I'm a Mac'. Sums up the whole debate.
Posted by Clump | April 6, 2009 2:24 PM
Uh, you're not a PC. You're a PC USER. That was the whole point of the Apple ad series; those guys don't represent users, they represent the platform. I guess Microsoft was onto something when they realized that people didn't understand what Apple was really saying.
Posted by Panurge | April 6, 2009 3:07 PM
So, uh, you're like the majority of the market. And, uh, I'm like bored by the second paragraph of your story.
So, uh, like, yeah, Macs are cool and all, but when it comes down to it, buy what you need. People don't "need" cool, unless they're a little off center of the mainstream (in any number of ways.)
I've got a 2.8 year old MacBook Pro, and, frankly, it's a piece of $hit. Yes, $hit when purchased, $hit again when the power brick wires frayed like they all do, $hit again when I bought a second battery that has died after 50 power cycles in less than a year, and it will be an even bigger $hit if I sent it in for a main-board replacement to deal with the graphics chip that locks up when it gets hot (which, as any aluminum MBP user with thermal sensitive nerves in their lap can tell you is ALL the time.) When it's working it's a nice near-top end piece of kit, the software is good and all, but it's nothing magical, and it's not really all that different from the PC experience if you invest the same amount of time and effort into each to learn what's going on. The only thing that's better in Mac world (in my opinion) is that there's this massive fan (user) base that all has hardware more or less identical to your own, so at least they can tell you what went wrong when it happens, unlike the Sony or Dell flavor of the week. But, in the end, it's pretty much the same experience.
Sorry, is everyone bored with my opinions yet? I have more...
Posted by Joe | April 6, 2009 3:46 PM
Good luck with that. I've been a PC for 10 years, but after suffering my third hard-drive crash in four years last week, and a drive-by malware attack from an infected Digg adserver (a nasty little trojan that proved almost impossible to get rid of despite a fully-updated OS and top security suite) just Friday night, and endless hangs etc, I'm D-O-N-E. I hated being a PC. I was miserable. So I'm gonna be a Mac. It's been about 11 years since I bought a new Mac, but it's goal #1 today.
Posted by Sarah | April 6, 2009 3:52 PM
No one considers that resale value after 3 years of a similarly priced PC notebook is much lower than that of a comparable Apple laptop.
Posted by Ralph Bassfeld | April 6, 2009 3:58 PM
@Ralph
That's because the harddrives of Macs and the CPUs of Macs are small and slow to begin with, while a new PC can be cutting edge. Cutting edge loses a bit of value over three years, whereas small and slow to begin with won't.
--
The "I'm a Mac" guy - reveals his name as Brand On - He promotes the iPhone and adds clarity to the Apple brand in this new clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lL2F6mw9pk
Posted by Clump | April 6, 2009 4:10 PM
"Vista is vastly inferior to Leopard and predecessor Tiger. There, I said it."
You certainly did. That doesn't make it accurate or less ignorant.
Posted by paul | April 6, 2009 4:26 PM
I was in your shoes a while back (back and forth between Windows and MacOS). The best thing I ever did is choose "None of the above" by going with Ubuntu. I haven't missed either Windows or MacOS since. The thing that I really like about Ubuntu is that it is fast, easy to use and I don't have to spend money for software that cost 100's of $$$ to do simple things like editing images. I have a VMWare image of Windows XP that I keep in case I need to do something that only runs on Windows and despite using my computer at work and at home, in the past year I've yet to bring up the image. Especially gratifying because a coworker told me that I wouldn't last two weeks with Ubuntu and here I am 2 years later happier than ever with it.
Posted by South Austin | April 6, 2009 4:32 PM
Quote Ian Betteridge "Count me amongst the impressed."
-
and youre not alone, many of the "beta people" are very happy at the moment. Although is Win7 great because youre comparing it to Vista? or is it great in its own right?
-
If its the later, then Id love to hear what Win7 offers the average user over XP (except for a flashy frontend) I am sure any of the "advantages" of Win7 already exist either natively or via 3rd party software in XP. Or am I wrong?
-
Ive purposely avoided looking at Win7 until its actually on the shelf. We dont have to cast our minds too far back to the pre-Vista hype, do we?
-
Back on topic, the advert, which according to Mary-Jo Foley is promoting affordability, is something which IMO Microsoft shouldnt be doing.
Theyve lost the "sexy" war to Mac (they admit that IMO), and they certainly wont win the "price" war to Linux. What exactly is the advert offering? Surely Mr "Im on a budget" would get even more technology for his money if he opted for a Linux OS? Couple that with the smaller requirements of a Linux system and I think our budding bargain hunter on the MS ads would find himself an amazing deal. IMO he'd end up with alot more spare cash at the end and maybe wouldnt have to sell his dignity for a MS ad. (IMO)
-
Posted by Goblin | April 6, 2009 4:59 PM
Interesting Post Joe, and oddly enough, one that I find I mostly agree with. It is also enlighting as to what you use. I would expect at some point you will be going back to your Mac, as window$ 7even
is still the same basic malware target it always has been. You and everyone else will find that out eventually, maybe the next time that eweek servers dish up some more windows malware?
I could say that I am a PC too. Only my PC's run Linux, and don't suffer from all the malware and stability problems of Windo$e. I do find that Mac is too expensive, but, in my opinion Mac is a superior OS to Windows, for about the same reasons that Linux is a superior OS to Windows. Oddly enough I find the Gui interface of KDE 3.5x Linux and Windows more to my liking than Mac OS X.
You are right of course, an OS should not be about religion. We must be pragmatic and look at the cold hard facts of which system has which advantages. For me that system is GNU/Linux, its far more stable than any Windows version, malware is not a problem, and as an added bonus the software is generally free, both as in free as beer, and what you can do with it. M$ Windows has somehow gotten more expensive and harder to deal with, a serial number here to look for in the paperwork, another activation to do, etc. Always something to require more time, serveral malware and antivirus programs to update and scan with, and then deal with false positives, or worse, with an security program that incorrectly deletes some of your system files as false positives. Then there are the infamous M$ auto-updates, after which one wonders if there computer will ever boot back up.
I have stated that I would be inclined to buy a Mac for a little more than a new computer with Windows on it, and I still would. Because a Mac is the only computer that Mac, Windows, and Linux can run on "legally." Mac is basically BSD unix underneath the hood, which is like the first cousin of GNU/Linux. So what do you get with a Mac that you cannot with Linux? A very few commercial apps that may not be available to Linux? Let me say that I do not need those, and that the plus of having even more "free" apps and games in Linux over Mac is right for me. Still I sort of like Mac, as it a big step in the right direction away from the problems of Micro$oft Windows, as far as Malware.
I think a lot depends on the health of Steve Jobs and who and when he is permanently replaced, then we can see (perhaps) a meaningful price reduction in Apple computers. They are going take a beating in sales volume without a price reduction, as this is a major worldwide recession/depression.
Posted by chips b malroy | April 6, 2009 5:23 PM
Not much to comment about here. But it is nice to see new names here who are either running Linux or dabbling with it....
Posted by Ralph | April 6, 2009 7:35 PM
The only reason your PC cost more than a Mac is because you bought a Sony. Sony pricing is as bad as Apple.
Posted by Kiki | April 6, 2009 7:58 PM
To Mac users who think that OS X is better than Windows: Prepare to be disappointed. Windows 7 is going to rock your world. It truly is as good, if not better than OS X. And, no, I'm not a shill for MS. I've used both operating systems and, although I primarily use Macs, I've been using a borrowed laptop with Windows 7 -- and Microsoft is going to sell a TON of copies of Windows 7. I had to pinch myself. They actually got something right, for a change.
To the "Mac OS security is better" fanboys: Who are you kidding? Apple has one of the worst security patch records of all OS vendors. I have to laugh every time I hear a Mac user claiming that the security is better. Easier? Sure. Less maintenance? Yeah. Fewer hackers go after Macs. Better? I don't think so.
Posted by Tom | April 6, 2009 11:00 PM
If all we're talking about is price, I can buy a non-Mac laptop that makes all models of Macs look really cheap.
For the sort of work I do, I wouldn't buy a Mac (my last Mac is still alive and well but I rarely use it these days). The cheap discardable non-Macs suit me well. I just wish they didn't have a Microsoft Tax on them.
Posted by Anonymouse | April 6, 2009 11:11 PM
i bought the new aluminium macbook recently after getting tired of windows and viruses.
I had to pay twice as much for what i would have gotten on windows laptop. I could have even got a tablet pc for the price of macbook.
So far macbook is working like charm. Touch aluminum.
But mac is hard read my review here
http://www.prasanthblog.com/2009/02/25/mac-is-hard-believe-me/
Posted by prasanth Nair | April 7, 2009 12:24 AM
"Windows is vastly superior to OSX. OSX is a narrow special purpose OS that is engineered to run on a short range of computer equipment.
Windows is a dynamic operating system that will run most every desktop, laptop, netbook and server being built today. It scalable, customizable, provides several wide open platforms for programing and scripting and is fun to use and robust in just about every environment."
-----------------------------------
s/Windows/Debian/g
:wq
-----------------------------------
You're welcome.
Posted by Fixing Clump's post | April 7, 2009 2:17 AM
That does sound like a nice computer. You do admit that it wasn't easy to find, especially at that price, and I appreciate that.
I'll probably not give up my Mac for a PC just yet. In fact, I'm still at the stage where I find it liberating leaving the optimisation of specs to the Apple product managers. (I've only had Macs for the last 1.5 years and working on them make me feel great).
Posted by Jupiter | April 7, 2009 10:10 AM
no mac user would buy a steaming pile of windows dog-poo.
pc/windows users live in trailers and use their "savings" to buy more cigarettes and beer.
I wouldn't care if dells were gold plated, you could not give me one.
steaming piles of cheap black plastic.
Posted by David Owens | April 7, 2009 3:44 PM
This post is another thinly veiled Microsft Press release
"I'm switching back because of windows 7"
Give me a break, Apple have another version of OSX before windows 7 is gonna hit the shelves.
I use a 3 yr old Viao by the way and been very happy with it. (I switch BACK to XP after Vista made life hell for 2 months)
Posted by Grubber | April 7, 2009 5:48 PM
Back in 2001 I bought a used 1994 Acura NSX for a whole lot of money. There were plenty of new cars, nice cars, I could have purchased for less. My wife was (and is) upset with the purchase. She asked "What on earth wold justify paying that much for a USED vehicle?" My answer was to show her the front wishbone suspension. It is aluminum and cast as a single piece. The engineer who designed that part of the car made it beautiful, almost like a sculpture. If that attention to detail was lavished on a part of the car most owners might never see, then, it is safe to assume the rest of the car is worthy of the price I paid.
Today I read a review for the new 17-inch MacBook Pro. As reviewed, the configuration cost over $4200. As soon as I can afford it, I plan to purchase one to replace my current 17-inch PowerBook G4. Unlike my wife (and I suspect many of the readers of this blog, including the author), cars and computers are more than tools to me. In fact, even tools are more than tools for me. I buy the best I can afford, with a heavy emphasis on design and functionality which often go hand-in-hand. I keep my tools, cars and laptops longer than most people, which is one of the ways I justify spending more on these items. There is also a component of ownership, the sheer joy of interacting with a beautifully-designed machine that transcends just 'getting the job done'. Just about any car will take you to the pharmacy to pick up your blood pressure medication, but only a select few will put a smile on your face in the process. The beauty of Macs is that the software compliments the hardware. Both are designed to put that smile on your face, making the process as enjoyable as the result. I suspect that this level of appreciation is something a person either values, or they don't.
Posted by Wayne | April 8, 2009 11:36 AM
@Wayne
Yeah, yeah, but Apple use stock Intel CPUs and usually undersized 5400 rpm harddrives which they contract for. Dell does as much and usually better.
Instead of the Acura analogy, let me point you to a better one: bronzing the baby shoes. They [Apple] create a neat-o rainbow coalition white or grey box for the outside and then stuff underpar components in it and sell it for thousands more to politically correct rainbow types. As a matter of fact, 'rainbow coalition' is too broad a term because they are narrowing their 'demographic' as the "I'm a Mac" guy explains in this oddly titled video clip:
["I'm a Mac" guy explains the new demographic and promotes the iPhone]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lL2F6mw9pk
Posted by Clump | April 8, 2009 2:38 PM
Clump,
You may be correct about Mac components, which would (as you point out) make my Acura analogy less than accurate. But what you did not address is the software aspect. I'm a consultant for the print graphics, web design and digital photography industries. Often, as is the case currently, I am issued a computer to use whenever I am on-site. I try to get a Mac, but, half of the time, I get a Dell or an HP. In order to get and keep these assignments I must be able to work seamlessly with whatever hardware/software combination the company favors. Nearly twenty years of experience with both systems has convinced me that the Windows software/hardware combination is clunkier and often slower. Can you get the work done? Yep. At times it's frustrating, though. The place I'm at now is a good example. HPs everywhere, except in the graphics, publishing and photography departments. They use Macs. I have a good relationship with their IT department. I asked once if they would let me know if they gets a spare 17" MacBook. He laughed. He said those things are like platinum. He also said that the respective departments are responsible for there own troubleshooting, maintenance and upgrading. "They don't need us."
Posted by Wayne | April 8, 2009 6:28 PM
@Wayne
Have a nice end week and holiday weekend.
Posted by Clump | April 8, 2009 7:42 PM
@David Owens:
I consider myself to be a cross-platform user. I have both Macs and PCs in my home/office, but my last purchasing decision was for a Toshiba notebook, rather than a Mac. Price was one consideration, but more important was the ability to get to the upgradeable parts. Sure Macs look nice, but my wife's iBook G4 is a nightmare to upgrade. No matter what you want to do, save replace the keyboard and/or wireless card requires you to completely disassemble the product--not my idea of "easy". Let's face it, parts do wear out eventually, and removing a screw or two to replace memory or a hard drive is a lot better than tearing the whole thing apart. Second, the Mac OS is not any more secure than Windows--there are those who have proved that. The worst mistake Apple ever made IMHO was to switch to Intel processors. The only thing saving Mac users is that they are still such a minority that crackers don't feel the Mac OS to be such a lucrative target as Windows. As far as Linux is concerned, it will NEVER be a serious contender because it does not provide the ease of use or a standard like Windows and Mac OSX does. Most people WILL NOT take the time to learn the tips and tricks, especially the command line, to make Linux a serious possibility, leaving it an arena for computer nerds and M$ haters.
Posted by Isma'il | April 10, 2009 12:21 PM
@David Owens:
I consider myself to be a cross-platform user. I have both Macs and PCs in my home/office, but my last purchasing decision was for a Toshiba notebook, rather than a Mac. Price was one consideration, but more important was the ability to get to the upgradeable parts. Sure Macs look nice, but my wife's iBook G4 is a nightmare to upgrade. No matter what you want to do, save replace the keyboard and/or wireless card requires you to completely disassemble the product--not my idea of "easy". Let's face it, parts do wear out eventually, and removing a screw or two to replace memory or a hard drive is a lot better than tearing the whole thing apart. Second, the Mac OS is not any more secure than Windows--there are those who have proved that. The worst mistake Apple ever made IMHO was to switch to Intel processors. The only thing saving Mac users is that they are still such a minority that crackers don't feel the Mac OS to be such a lucrative target as Windows. As far as Linux is concerned, it will NEVER be a serious contender because it does not provide the ease of use or a standard like Windows and Mac OSX does. Most people WILL NOT take the time to learn the tips and tricks, especially the command line, to make Linux a serious possibility, leaving it an arena for computer nerds and M$ haters.
Posted by Isma'il | April 10, 2009 12:28 PM
Seriously, no one cares about this except perhaps you and Microsoft. As you and Microsoft are bent on justifying your purchases of a PC with Windows installed, I'd say this says more about you and Microsoft than Apple.
MS has become the IBM of 1982; thick as a whale omelet and now following rather than leading (that Zune is somethin', eh).
Once again (again) will be trying to convince everyone that the next version of Windows is the best yet (for operating a computer that is).
Time will tell, but I just don't care.
Posted by Joe A. | April 10, 2009 1:49 PM
Finally, someone else who likes Macs and PCs equally!
i too am rather satisfied with vista. The only problem i'm encountering is that firefox is rather iffy, but hey. that's lack of a specifically X64 port for you.
Posted by PoopskinTheLiar | April 11, 2009 3:16 PM
Joe A: (and others)
Don't confuse the iphone & ipod with computers. Personally I adore my ipod touch. However, for a computer that will do everything, including editing video with advanced Adobe software like Premiere and Aftereffects....I need the versatility and power of a PC.
There are several competing PC manufacturers to keep these products at the leading edge of quality and innovation.
And as for software: thousands of Windows compatible programs & Windows 7 winning accolades: what more do I want...
Posted by newton newton | April 11, 2009 7:08 PM
Joe, I love Windows 7 too. The Taskbar is so innovative. My computing is very sporadic. Some moments I feel like playing a particular song or group of songs from my library. The Jump List feature for Media Player 11 makes it a cinch to find artiste and play list. Just right click the WMP 11 icon and click my frequent Playlist. Same goes for Microsoft Word, I have my documents that I am working on at the moment pinned to the Microsoft Word Jump List for easy finding.
Search is even more improved, detailed results, Task Pane results and Control Panel applets show up in results. I love Search Scopes which makes it very easy to find common items, and the highlighted search results. You can also include a search location which is cool, so you can add a mapped network drive, an external drive to your locations.
Windows 7 is just so excellent. Too bad Chips will be stuck with his incompatible Linux and continue to spread negativity about a platform he doesn't even use. I know you are hurting Chips, but accept it, Linux is going no where - Netbooks have dropped, PC's have dropped it, the world has realized that Linux is more problem.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | April 12, 2009 11:47 AM
I by far prefer a Mac. I had a PC and hated it. With a Mac there is far less system crashes, far less of a chance of a virus an they come with more software. Macs do cost more up front but in the long run are about the same price maybe even cheaper. The only disadvantage to a Mac may be that certain PC only software does not run on it. This problem was solved with the introduction of OS 10.4 with a Pentium(sp?) processor that allowed you to switch over to windows for those handful of programs. So now there is no reason to buy a PC. They suck.
Posted by Matt | April 20, 2009 4:20 AM
I by far prefer a Mac. I had a PC and hated it. With a Mac there is far less system crashes, far less of a chance of a virus an they come with more software. Macs do cost more up front but in the long run are about the same price maybe even cheaper. The only disadvantage to a Mac may be that certain PC only software does not run on it. This problem was solved with the introduction of OS 10.4 with a Pentium(sp?) processor that allowed you to switch over to windows for those handful of programs. So now there is no reason to buy a PC. They suck.
Posted by Matt | April 20, 2009 4:21 AM
Anyone that says PC's suck or Macs suck, or Linux is great or this is great is a moron. Use what you need to use to get your shit done. I am a software developer by trade -- I make my living writing systems for large enterprises. Good luck finding a Mac there... but there are plenty of Linux and Windows infrastructures. Who cares which one you think is better, chances are you don't even know why its better. I got a PhD in Computer Science from MIT and I can tell you this -- they're all the same at the end of the day 1's and 0's. Why doesn't everyone just go and get a life and go work on what you need to work on and stop bitching about your favorite OS... NOBODY CARES!
Posted by Steven | April 23, 2009 11:12 AM
Anyone that says PC's suck or Macs suck, or Linux is great or this is great is a moron. Use what you need to use to get your shit done. I am a software developer by trade -- I make my living writing systems for large enterprises. Good luck finding a Mac there... but there are plenty of Linux and Windows infrastructures. Who cares which one you think is better, chances are you don't even know why its better. I got a PhD in Computer Science from MIT and I can tell you this -- they're all the same at the end of the day 1's and 0's. Why doesn't everyone just go and get a life and go work on what you need to work on and stop bitching about your favorite OS... NOBODY CARES!
Posted by Steven | April 23, 2009 11:13 AM
I was weighing Sony VAIO or a Mac PowerBook Pro - customized to comparable specs. I ended up purchasing the Sony with 64-bit Vista and 4 GB RAM at about $1500. The Mac was going to cost over $2900. Yeah, tacking on another $1400 would have been a very stiff Apple tax.
Plus, as a Java IT developer (and Adobe Flex/AIR) I needed a computer that I can always pull down the latest Java JRE and Java JDK. With Mac OS X, you have to wait months and months for Apple to supply an update to the Java JRE. Unacceptable.
I've got iTunes for Windows on the Sony so I'm good.
I do say, though, that the iLife apps on Mac OS X rock and give a way better consumer computing experience than a Windows PC. Windows 7 still has nothing to really compete against the iLife suite. Mac OS X, as an OS out of the box experience, delivers much more value to a consumer than does. Windows. The typical Windows PC comes with a lot of crap software that supposedly address what iLife does, but of course the Windows stuff is all a pathetic joke.
But this Sony was for development and so MS Office suite, a drawing program (Visio), and all my development tools is all I needed. I still go back to my old Mac for the iLife apps.
(Hmm, guess is a little strange that I'm actually posting this from my hand-built Ubuntu Linux PC.)
Posted by RogerV | May 16, 2009 12:56 PM