Drop, charge, and lose the cords
Mac OS X: Advantages of Mac of Windows
Mac versus windows ...
by geek49203 - 4/19/06 9:53 PM In reply to: Mac versus windows.. by David papaYES Macs ARE the sexiest looking computers on this side of creation. Not only do they "look good," they also WORK as good as they look, which is a compliment in and of itself.
Advantage - Mac
by swood - 6/3/05 11:42 AM In reply to: Advantages of Mac of Windows by tbyronGreetings, I travel for work and have converted from windows to a 12" Powerbook with Tiger 10.4. operating system. Tiger is, without any question.. the most advanced OS in the world! It "works" for you not like Windows where you work for, and on it, and constantly. Consumer reports gives Apple / Macintosh it's highest rating. I could go on and on but best to do this: Consider walking into a Apple store and see for yourself.
No, I don't work for Apple.
"Spotlight" a major feature of Tiger OS will change the way you use/think about computing.
I have Microsoft office for Mac installed so I have no issues with co- workers trading doc, ppt, excel, I connect via wireless, automatic anywhere. No blue screen, no crashes, no freezes. no viruses. A robust firewall, and my powerbook is mucho fast!
Interesting Quote
by Merl Priester - 6/7/05 9:23 PM In reply to: Advantages of Mac of Windows by tbyronA friend of mine recently went to a small convention/meeting in Los Angeles. One of the speakers was a man who was one of the programmers of Photoshop CS.
In addition to a wealth of how to information he gave out, and the speaking about of what is in store in the future of digital photography, the 2 questions he asked of the audience was what stood out the most.
1: How many here are using a MAC?
2: Why are you still using a MAC?
I have never used a MAC, and in the early days (1980s)
MAC was in fact the top of the line for artists and graphics.
APPLE has fallen behind. It doesn't mean there OS is bad, it means it cost way too much for equivalent hardware. And even though there are others who post that the G5 is "just as fast" well that is pure MAC bias and not fact.
Even Hollywood is dumping MAC because they have not kept up with multiprocessor units (MAC is limited to 2)
where they are quickly being passed by both Intel and AMD.
If they could bring down the high price and get with the processor program (and they might) as they just announce they are going to use INTEL CPUs soon, they might get out of the hole they are in.
3% to 5% of the market is not enough to get programmers to continue to write big budget software.
ADOBE has kept apple alive for years. If they decide to stop developing for the MAC, Apple may have to try and buy ADOBE just to save themselves.
Jobs should give up trying to own everything and sell the OS and then develop apps for it. Copy M$.
Let anyone build the hardware with Apple approval.
If I had to use a MAC, I would live as would eveyone else.
There is room for both and just as I am glad Intel has AMD to contend with, Gates hould have at least one thorn in his side, er APPLE in his side.
I don't see it that way...
by lampietheclown - 6/10/05 12:40 AM In reply to: Interesting Quote by Merl PriesterFirst of all,
Anticdotes told 3rd hand don't carry much weight, especially when you don't say who the speaker was.
Second, I don't understand how you can start a paragraph with "I have never used a MAC", and then, without pause or period, go on to speak about Apple as though you know about the "early days". I'm guessing from the rest of your post that you don't know much about Apple "these days" either.
On what do you base the statement that "Apple has fallen behind"? Not only is Apple still a favorite in Hollywood (a poor way to gauge products at best), but your assertion that "Macs are limited to 2" is also wrong.
Last year Virginia Tech. built what was at the time, the 3rd fastest computer in the world, using "off the shelf" Apple G-5 computers. This year they have replaced the Macintosh G5 computers in the original supercomputer with 1,100 custom-built Xserve G5 servers. The new system runs at a sustained speed of 12.25 trillion operations per second, up 19% from the previous version.
By the way, Virginia Tech estimates its system costs one-fifth to one-tenth as much as it would on another platform. The original system cost $5.2 million, and another $600,000 was spent upgrading it. Do you think they could have done that if "just as fast" was, as you put it, "pure Mac Bias"?
By the way, since you've never used a Mac, how would you know?
Next you comment about Apple being in a hole. Based on what? In the last quarter of 2004, Apple saw a 25% increase in cpu shipments, compared to the computer industry's overall 13.7% increase. By the way, that's pre Mac-mini. Want to place a bet on what the first quarter of 2005 looks like?
Let's take a look at your "thoughts" on market share. You think 3%-5% spells doom for Apple? First how did you arrive at those figures? More 3rd hand info?
Overall market share covers large market segments where Apple isn’t competing — including markets where Apple doesn’t want to compete. Fifteen or 20 years ago, personal computers were generally only purchased and used by people who were “into” computers. Today, however, many computers are purchased for use as generic business machines, modern-day typewriters and adding machines.
PCs are used everywhere from telemarketing cubicle farms to supermarket checkout registers. The much ballyhooed “network computer” platform never emerged the way companies like Sun and Oracle had hoped (i.e. “no Microsoft”), but very cheap PCs are frequently used as little more than network terminals. Apple simply doesn’t make machines that would be good choices for extremely low-end tasks. Apple has concentrated at the high-end of the consumer market.
Mercedes has been making cars for over a hundred years. When have they ever had the leading market share? Porsche? Rolls Royce? Austin Martin? When I think of outstanding automotive engineering, those are the companies that first come to my mind. Do you think of market share? Enjoy your Ford Taurus. There are a thousand companies that make parts for it! So when is Mercedes due to go out of business? Not any time soon I think, they bought Chrysler.
Any company that creates, and markets it's creations and services to its customer base well, regardless of industry pundits and stock analysts will succeed, thrive, and matter. Maseratti, Bang & Olfson, Rolex, Lear Jet, all of the premium, "niche" companies know this.
Market share is important but how you define the market is also important. Mercedes is only a small part of the auto industry but it is a giant in the luxury automobile market. The trick is defining your space correctly."
Your space, as is indicated by your numbers, is not so much like overall automobile market share as it is like overall motor vehicle market share. It’s like counting everything from golf carts to tractor trailers as a single category.
On the other hand, if being with the "market share leader" is what's important to you, then enjoy McDonalds and Burger King. Me, I had a wonderful steak last night at this place called Diamond Grill. It must be an absolute failure, it's tiny, only about 30 tables, and just like Apple, it's obviously been right on the edge of failure for the last twenty years because of its tiny market share and higher prices. Just look at how many meals they sell a year vs. McDonalds! After all, food is food, right?
If Adobe stops supporting the Mac for any length of time, I'll be able to buy it, cheap.
Your suggestion that Jobs sell the OS and just develop apps for it shows how little you know about Apple's history. While Jobs was off creating Pixar, the CEO of Apple had the same idea you did, and almost ran Apple into the ground. Apple is a hardware company first, and the "clones" created by this policy did nothing but cut into Apples profits. They shot the CEO, or maybe burned him, I forget which, but it was too late. Everyone figured Apple was sunk. The board at Apple couldn't find anyone willing to take over as CEO, just to go down with the ship, so they asked Jobs to come back as "interim" CEO until they could find a sucker... er, I mean CEO. Jobs bought back all the OS licenses, killed the clones, and created the i-Mac, while waiting for the board to find their sucker. The i-mac made Apple profitable again, The board made Steve very rich, (as if he wasn't already) and He's still there running things. Anyone know if his title is still "interim"?
I checked out your profile, and was not surprised to see that your last 70 posts in a row were all to the XP forum. I'm not sure how you ended up here, Are you?
.
Very good post
by mrmacfixit
- 6/10/05 4:58 AM
In reply to: I don't see it that way... by lampietheclown
and The Steve is no longer "Interim"
P
Steve's Title
by lampietheclown - 6/10/05 8:25 AM In reply to: Very good post by mrmacfixit
If I was Jobs, I'd have it on my business cards, my license plate, and engraved on my office door. He didn't need the job, or the money, and the way he got pushed out makes me very surprised that he didn't tell them to shove it where the floppy won't go.
To say to him that he can have his old job back, but only till they find a real CEO, must have taken huge trackballs, and I doubt that the crow population in northern Ca. will ever recover.
Oh yea, and a tattoo in 90 pt Apple Chancery!
Ha !
by grimgraphix - 6/11/05 8:00 AM In reply to: Steve's Title by lampietheclownPunny !
Grim
See it what way
by taboma. - 6/11/05 10:44 PM In reply to: I don't see it that way... by lampietheclownlampie, Nice writing still. 70+ posts on XT will tell you a few things. I find PC to be harder to learn and very involved. Mac is easier for me and the commands in graphic programs are wonderful and easy to learn. I am a graphic artist. PC and Mac are great tools to the Film Industry in Hollywood. Where would STAR WARS be without computers and powerful processors?
PC/MAC? Both are good.
Tomatoes/Tamatoes? Both are nice.
I like Mac in Advertising and Graphic Design.
My wife likes PC and Mac in business. Prefers PC.
Who's to say?
Kevin
Awesome Research and Response
by geek49203 - 4/19/06 10:22 PM In reply to: I don't see it that way... by lampietheclownYour response was AMAZING! So much so that I have printed a copy of it, so that I could "gloss" over your research, and appreciate the knowledge that you possess. Thank you for the inspiration!
Besides, what would a "programmer" for Adobe Photoshop know about a Mac? Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm."
PC or MAC?
by Volt Consultant - 6/26/05 10:25 PM In reply to: Advantages of Mac of Windows by tbyronI use both when I'm working and both for pleasure. I like windows desktops and MAC Laptops. I use mac laptops on the go and PC's on my desk. Overall though, I like them both. Both MAC and Windows are good for different things
As of today, there are no advantages,
by Gakada - 4/19/06 9:24 PM In reply to: Advantages of Mac of Windows by tbyronjust plain design...
And now look carefully, behind the reason why Mac using Intel..
All this years, many Mac users, doesn't aware or CAN ignored any viruses, Adware, Spyware, Malware etc. where as PC users, always worried about it.
When PC users, use P2P programs to download things... evryone is shouting DON'T DO IT, because there a risk of virus infection etc.
Meanwhile, Mac Users, can use it without thinking about those virus etc. They can download anything using anything (P2P program for example)
Now, the contract and/or production of Apple and IBM hardware are no longer available.. many (especially) those software and music/movies companies, approaching Apple, and say: Hey Apple, why don't you use Intel based, so they will have the risk as PC users, and we can say to the users.. DON'T USE P2P program now, because of the risk of virus etc. that could attack yout Mac.
Hence, those company can control and reduce piracy of their softwares, songs and movies..
Yes, thats how the business are running up there..
WHat a load of rubbish
by mrmacfixit - 4/20/06 4:57 AM
In reply to: As of today, there are no advantages, by Gakada
The Intel processor is NOT the reason why there are so many virus's on the Windows side of the computing world, Windows is the reason.
The Mac OS will still be the Mac OS regardless of the engine that is driving it.
The virus's that mess with Windows are built to mess with Windows regardless of what engine is driving it. AMD or Intel, it does not matter to the virus's, it gets in because Windows lets it in. Face it, Windows is just an insecure OS with more holes than a Swiss Cheese.
Stealing software is always illegal, not matter where it comes from, but Mac users are NOT at any more of a risk using P2P networks than they were when their machines were driven by IBM and Motorola.
P
maybe you are right... but with the ability
by Gakada - 4/20/06 12:31 PM In reply to: WHat a load of rubbish by mrmacfixit
of dual boot (OS) etc. .. many people will try that.. and if they get comfortable... then came the virus etc.... in which could attack both OSes
Watch My Lips
by mrmacfixit - 4/20/06 2:58 PM
In reply to: maybe you are right... but with the ability by Gakada
There are currently NO virus's for OS X .
Dual Boot does not change that fact.
The virus's will affect the Windows Boot, because that's what they do.
Dual Boot does not change that fact.
Unless you can explain otherwise
P
Not yet .. maybe... later.. who knows..
by Gakada - 4/20/06 9:39 PM In reply to: Watch My Lips by mrmacfixit
there are many article about the false sense of security on the mac users..
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=165
http://www.xplodenet.com/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=2
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
