Community poll forum: How will Macs with Intel affect your buying habits?

I know so little about PC's it frees me to believe everything I write?

I work with both platforms. Both have their strong and not-so strong points. Most of the major programs in photography, layout, video and audio have comparable counterparts. (I can hear the screams of applets in the distance ...

I will take issue with your "concerns" about Apple's switch to Intel. It's one of the greatest moves Job has made. FINALLY Apple has become competitive, speed wise. Just check out the figures.

Boot Camp or the new Parallels Workstation 2.1 provide more choices for buyers of Apple systems. This can't help but increase Apple market share.

It appears that confirmed Windows users and techs like their platform as the ability to understand the myriad problems entitles them to feel superior when fixing the computers of the less well informed and skilled. PC users on the Windows platform are at the constant mercy of tech departments that only exist because the machines they use are so poorly designed, and break down so frequently due to hardware and software problems.
Macs traditionally had higher prices due to higher spec components that were matched (for the most part) to the machines. PC machines could be cobbled together on price, without the reliability, eventually costing more to run due to repairs or earlier replacement.
I have used Macs since 1994, still own all of them, and they all still work!. I recently purchased a PC (October 2005) to run a very high end piece of CAD software involving rendering, but despite having a very talented tech person, the machine has not run correctly until 7 days ago. Six months of problems - which have negated the need for the machine in the first place, as the project requiring the software is now finished. What a waste! Never had this problem with the MAC, over 12 years. Not happy. By the way, the problem was with an intermittent fault on the video card - not a cheap one either.
MrPhysio

Your techie might be talented but not very experienced to suspect a hardware problem. It's not that uncommon, by the way, I tried six computer repair shops who couldn't find a problem with my friend's PC: having done a twelve day beginner's computer building course, I suspected the power suply, tried another one and voila, my friend's computer has been working ever since! I am a little technophobic and at the time knew even less about computers, instead I had common sense and no assumptions.

And by the way, I still use my 486 with DOS and Windows 3.11 (you can run Win95 in them but my hardware isn't powerful enough), that's pre-Pentium machines to you young and MAC users. It works as well as when it was new, only it isn't designed to run the latest software, which is why people generally buy new machines - not because their old ones break down.

The reason why MACs work so well is that there is only one company making them. This divergence has allowed the optimisation between hard- and software, but this means no competition with other companies and so steeper prices.

Of course, innovation is also on the shoulders of a one company. Apple has done well to realise it cannot compete with PC's power and chaper prices, including software, brought by convergence and competition (recently firece between AMD and Intel, and between graphics card manufacturers ) and focused on creating another nieche market - the iPod. But with copycats, one such innovation isn't enough to keep a company afloat for long, hence Steve Jobs has finaly come round to Intel Processors. (If he had more sense, he would have chosen AMD for stability of its processors but he must have felt safer with Intel - money talks even in MAC world) Afterall, the pc has long been able to do anything that MAC could and more. Too many kids know how to use PCs and even troubleshoot them. At the same time, less and less users cause problems in the first place (it only seems so because the number of users have grown rapidly). I haven't seen any youngster recently, who has used the CD-drive tray as a cup holder. Modern PCs don't seem to carsh so easily either, or have I always been just lucky?

As for me: yes, I would like to get my head around MAC (I find them much harder to use than PCs), and have considered buying one. But the machines are stupidly expensive compared to PCs, not many second-hand ones appear in my local paper and all the repair shops refuse to deal with MACs, not only because they are expensive to repair but few know how to fix them. If I could get away by buying the OS only, and install it into a machine I know how to do a basic repairs, I definetely would buy one. And then - I already have a linux disk for MAC machines.

I am a new Mac user at home after being dissapointed with Windows on Pcs. I am still working on a PC in my office (because I do not have any other choice) so I can really compare the feeling. Like many other, I spent few hours a day to maintain my PC at home instead of using it and I'm a middle aged lady who does not have enough time and knowledge for that. Then I swithched to Mac, although I hardly afforded it, and it was a renaissance for me - everything user friendly, easy and smooth, virus-free. Now when I saw the news I was a bit disappointed. I do not like the idea of Intel processor at all and especially not with Windows on it! And we all know the ways of how Microsoft ecourages people to by its software! I would still like to think that Mac is a safe Mac Os island in the sea of Windows sharks.
Vandolina

Get in line at Compusa

Why would you want to pay more for the hardware just run carappy Windows OS?
Have the good OS on any Intel machine, that's the goal!

The real question is: When will PCs ever be powerful enough to run Mac software? Seems that would be a logical extension to this. If the Mac, by using Intel, is able to run WinXP, shouldn't WinXP, using Intel, be able to run MacOS? Or is the Windows platform so powerful to prevent that from ever happening? As a former Amiga owner and user both at home and work - I hate to see another platform self-destruct.

I understand what you're saying but money talks and the MS OS is also trademarked so how is it that Apple is able to release the software without charge and that MS couldn't afford to do something if it wanted to? C'mon, reality is that if MS starts feeling hurt by this action he could buy Apple and put it out of its misery. I'd hate to see it even though I use a PC (primarily because it is what I fell into at work after the Amiga screwed up and bankrupted itself a few times and because changing from one to another is pretty expensive and the PC software in general is much more available and cheaper). I'd really prefer the Mac over the PC but then I'd prefer the Amiga over either if it were still available and supported to any extent - it was a joy to code on and there was more freedom than with either of the others but alas...all good things must come to an end. Point is, Mac was emulated on the Amiga (albeit somewhat slowly but the chips didn't match either - how about now, could the Mac be ran on an intel chip at all or not?
Or could someone add a chip to the lineup which would emulate the MacOS? Seems like a question just waiting to be answered since the OS is now out of the bag so to speak.
One would think that with dual capabilities that Mac would be the clear choice but do we really expect MS to ignore it if it becomes bothersome? I doubt it.

It's like hauling garbage or manure in your Lamborghini!!!
Why polute the environment!

why being able to have Windows in MAC will make MAC even more desirable. I understand that you can run Office in MAC so why don't you have equally old MAC laptop? Running Windows on your MAC machine doesn't make the OS any less vulnerable to malware or craching: it only gives you more choice of software (and chaper prices). I thought that's the whole point.

First off, I only build my PCs with AMD chips, so I would never buy an Intel based Mac; Secondly, the Mac, being as good as it is, actually is taking a step down by using Windows as the OS; and finally, if I wanted a Mac, I would buy a Mac, both for the hardware & the robust software.
No, folks, a Mac should be a Mac, a PC should be a PC.

Just my 2 cents...

Robert

Looks like 61% of those responding said no to the MAC for some reason. Enough said. Another biggie by Apple, Whoopee! Hang in there boys, the ship hasen't gone down yet.

I would never buy mac or anything with an intel chip.

I have always believed in being simple. Let's not go too far. But the question in this day and age, has it gone too far???

In some cases yes, in some cases no.

I have owned both MAC and PC platforms almost from day one. Anyone remember DOS 3.0???
Frankly I like both platforms. I have never had them together, nor do I want them together. But I didn't want a number of things the Newer Macs had but I still bought the latest item. What will happen is that some will buy the New Mac and use both Mac platform and WinXP platform regardless of what anyone else has to say.

As far as security goes I pay for both platforms for my internet security from Semantic. I buy software for both, most of the time matching software such as the Adobe Creative Suite, etc.

Cost will be a factor, Apple has always been more expensive, Apple has a niche of it's own and followers of it's own and that will remain the case. Many people just don't have the money to buy a Mac, so they will stick to the PC platform for economic reasons.

As long as Steve Jobs is running Apple, they will remain in the limelight and be riding the wave of technology because he knows where it's at. Change Steve Jobs and Apple will once again go down the tubes. Bottom Line more than likely.

At least until something different comes along. Then at that point in time who knows what the future holds.