8 Reasons Windows Users don't Switch

[Nothinman]

The point is that on the commodity hadware - Windows runs. Sure Microsoft did nothing to make that happen, but neither did Apple. Windows supports far more drivers than Apple does with OSX.

Apple sure did something to make it happen, they switched to the same hardware that most Windows users use. How is that nothing to you?

Apple's faults are not with the hardware selection; they were actually late in making that transition. The fault was with their not being able to make OSX work with non-Apple intel products and being restrictive with the software by not allowing people to do it. I can understand not supporting other people's hardware, but not controlling the OS beyond what Microsoft does.

Those aren't faults, they're intentional design decisions. Whether you like them or not the product works as intended. Apple makes very little money off of software so if they let everyone install their software on non-Apple hardware they'd die pretty quickly.

 

[indigo196]

Nothinman:

Apple doesn't make the kernel anymore do they? If they don't I am not sure how much Apple did vs. the BSD community. I could be wrong about that as I have not studied the path Darwin took to become OSX.

If Microsoft made Windows so it would not run on Intel Apple Hardware would you be supportive of that? If Apple allowed OSX to run on non-apple hardware you are saying that they would no longer be able to sell their won hardware? If they would still be able to sell their own hardware then they would not die pretty quickly... and if they do nothing with the hardware to make it worth the premium then perhaps they should charge less for the hardware and up the price for the OS.

To be honest if I could run OSX without having to pay an arm and a leg for the hardware I would try it. Though I think Debian may be the next OS of choice for me... I just gotta get used to XBOX gaming.

 

[Nothinman]

Apple doesn't make the kernel anymore do they? If they don't I am not sure how much Apple did vs. the BSD community. I could be wrong about that as I have not studied the path Darwin took to become OSX.

Of course Apple still works on the kernel, but it's also open source in Darwin so they're not the only ones working on it.

If Microsoft made Windows so it would not run on Intel Apple Hardware would you be supportive of that?

Sure, why wouldn't I? Well it would probably be more accurate to say that I wouldn't be opposed to it since I'm not a Windows user so I'm not too concerned with what they support.

If Apple allowed OSX to run on non-apple hardware you are saying that they would no longer be able to sell their won hardware? If they would still be able to sell their own hardware then they would not die pretty quickly... and if they do nothing with the hardware to make it worth the premium then perhaps they should charge less for the hardware and up the price for the OS.

I would say that they'd be missing out on a ton of market because so many people are willing to waste time trying to hack OS X to run on their Dell but not willing to spend the money on a full Apple machine. If they explicitly allowed people to install it on their Dell they'd likely gain marketshare but not make any real money off of it. And possibly spend more supporting it because of the all of the extra hardware that would have to be supported. Most OEMs don't do anything special with the hardware they sell beyond rebranding it. Secure Computing firewalls are just rebranded Dells, Dell RAID controllers are just rebranded LSIs, etc. And as can be seen in another thread in here the premium isn't anywhere near where it used to be.

 

[indigo196]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I would say that they'd be missing out on a ton of market because so many people are willing to waste time trying to hack OS X to run on their Dell but not willing to spend the money on a full Apple machine. If they explicitly allowed people to install it on their Dell they'd likely gain marketshare but not make any real money off of it. And possibly spend more supporting it because of the all of the extra hardware that would have to be supported. Most OEMs don't do anything special with the hardware they sell beyond rebranding it. Secure Computing firewalls are just rebranded Dells, Dell RAID controllers are just rebranded LSIs, etc. And as can be seen in another thread in here the premium isn't anywhere near where it used to be.

I come from a Microsoft background over the last 15 or so years so I have to wonder why Microsoft can make money on their software, but you feel Apple would not. It is certainly true that Apple sees itself as a hardware company first, but I just think they could make money of off OSX.

They do not have to spend money to support the hardware unless they choose too. Why not release a version of OSX that is freeware the way other BSD/Linux vendors do. Strip it of some of the "special" Apple features like Suse does with OpenSUSE vs. Suse Enterprise.

I really don't mean to argue, but I truly don't understand why Apple would lose by allowing people to run their OS on Intel hardware.

 

[Nothinman]

I come from a Microsoft background over the last 15 or so years so I have to wonder why Microsoft can make money on their software, but you feel Apple would not. It is certainly true that Apple sees itself as a hardware company first, but I just think they could make money of off OSX.

MS mostly makes money off of their software now because they're the default, most people just take what's given from an OEM and don't even consider the alternatives. And on top of that just about everyone who owns a Mac also owns a copy of Parallels and Windows to go inside of it so MS even makes money off of Apple sales.

They do not have to spend money to support the hardware unless they choose too.

So releasing a version that probably won't work on most non-Apple hardware would be ok with you? Do you know how many bad reviews would be posted after that release? And how many people would grab a copy, try it, find out that it doesn't work and then never consider buying a Mac?

Why not release a version of OSX that is freeware the way other BSD/Linux vendors do. Strip it of some of the "special" Apple features like Suse does with OpenSUSE vs. Suse Enterprise.

That's called Darwin.

I really don't mean to argue, but I truly don't understand why Apple would lose by allowing people to run their OS on Intel hardware.

They'd lose the money they make from selling you the hardware with OS X.

 

[indigo196]

Nothinman:

You say they would lose the money they would make selling the hardware...

Is the Apple hardware not good enough to stand against Dell, HP and self-built computers? From what I see of their laptops the answer is yes, the desktops offer unique features as well... do you really think the only reason the hardware sells is due to the OS?

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

OS X is worth it to a lot of people. I love using OS X so I'd rather buy a Mac. I'm sure Apple has considered expanding but found that it would be too costly to even benefit from expanding their OS to other bland brands. Driver support would become an expensive overhead. They're in a business and they are obviously doing something right. Microsoft has momentum, that's why they're the default OS choice. When people buy a PC they get Windows by default.

The Macbook and the Pro, what do you exactly mean they're not good enough to standup against Dell or HP? My Macbook feels a lot more solid then my buddies HP 15.4 Laptop. His feels to flimsy to start with and I don't fancy Vista's performance on it.

 

[Nothinman]

You say they would lose the money they would make selling the hardware...

Yes, I don't have any hard numbers but I'm sure the profit margins are higher on the hardware than they are on their software.

Is the Apple hardware not good enough to stand against Dell, HP and self-built computers? From what I see of their laptops the answer is yes, the desktops offer unique features as well... do you really think the only reason the hardware sells is due to the OS?

From what I've seen it's all pretty much standard hardware except for the EFI firmware, so what unique features are you talking about?

 

[TheStu]

I'm with SoundTheSurrender. Apple's hardware (especially now that it is the same vendors) stacks up very well against everyone else. So long as you compare Apples to apples (close as possible hardware) then you will generally find that the Mac is just as good if not better.

One thing that bugs me about Apple though is that (and it doesn't directly concern me since I am not in the market for a new laptop) they are intentionally keeping the MacBook held back in order to keep the difference between it and the MacBook Pro better defined.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: indigo196
Nothinman:

You say they would lose the money they would make selling the hardware...

Is the Apple hardware not good enough to stand against Dell, HP and self-built computers? From what I see of their laptops the answer is yes, the desktops offer unique features as well... do you really think the only reason the hardware sells is due to the OS?

apple can sell their hardware for whatever price they want because people buy an apple computer for the os. this was especially true in the past, pre-intel.

these days, imho the apple hardware is very much the same you find in everyone else's stuff, but they still don't offer the upgrades you can get as far as video cards in dells or whatever else. for the most part they are designed and built very well, and they make a great laptop.

honestly tho, if they sold the OS on it's own you'd see their profits go down A LOT, as you did in the past when they allowed people to make clones. people have the perception still that they are getting a raw deal in pricing because they can go buy cheap hardware and a lesser but in their mind equivalent processor and see a price difference.

personally i think nothinman is just an apple hater, but in this case he's probably close to being correct.

 

[TheStu]

They would also get a lot of backlash if they were to sell the OS openly. The OS is built to run on specific hardware, and has some freedom when it comes to printers, external drives and all the jazz, but if a person has a sort of off the wall system, and installs OS X, and then it isn't as stable as their friend's Mac Mini they will get peeved, trash Apple to high heaven, and then Apple gets bad press. Since Apple is a corporation they want to avoid bad press.

I apologize if any one else said this, i didn't notice it, but it isn't exactly an original argument.

 

[Nothinman]

personally i think nothinman is just an apple hater, but in this case he's probably close to being correct.

I'm always at least close to being correct. =)

I'm not an Apple hater, if anything I'm indifferent because I never have to use their hardware or software. I've even been thinking that I need a new notebook and a MacBook wouldn't be a bad idea although I'll bet that OS X doesn't last very long on it.

 

[indigo196]

Originally posted by: TheStu
They would also get a lot of backlash if they were to sell the OS openly. The OS is built to run on specific hardware, and has some freedom when it comes to printers, external drives and all the jazz, but if a person has a sort of off the wall system, and installs OS X, and then it isn't as stable as their friend's Mac Mini they will get peeved, trash Apple to high heaven, and then Apple gets bad press. Since Apple is a corporation they want to avoid bad press.

I apologize if any one else said this, i didn't notice it, but it isn't exactly an original argument.

With that annalogy then the best thing for Microsoft to do to "shore" up the bad press would be to make their own computers and lock all other hardware manufacturers out of the OS.

I understand that Apple is a combo company, but I just don't understand why they would get bad press when the same is not true of Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat and SuSE.

 

[TheStu]

Because it is Linux. They are free OSes (the majority of them) and they are primarily known for their difficulty to use, regardless of the veracity of this idea, just as people blindly believe that Apple is more expensive. Since they are free, people are more willing to put up with any quirks or incompatibilities that come up. As an example, let's say that I give someone free chevy, but sometimes the blinker stays on, and it pulls to the left a bit. The radio has to be fiddled with a bit to get it to work, and the AC blows hot air as much as it blows cold, but it was free. Now, let's say you buy that same model year and make chevy. Would you be ok with all those issues even though the guy with the free car is just fine with his?

I'm not saying that Apple would just take their existing version of OS X and just sell it, they would put some work into it. But for every version of OS X that Apple released for PPC, there was an Intel version being worked on. They have spent years on the Intel version of OS X making sure that it is just as good as what people were used to. If they were to sell version of OS X that could be installed on any x86 hardware, someone like myself (or really anyone that has ever used OS X) would expect it to be the exact same. The same ease of use, the same carefree attitude when plugging in drives, printers, scanners... the works, but that cannot be guaranteed if the user could be using any number of different graphics cards, expansion cards, or motherboards.

 

[Nothinman]

I understand that Apple is a combo company, but I just don't understand why they would get bad press when the same is not true of Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat and SuSE.

Linux distributions get plenty of flack for lack of hardware support even when it's not true. Hell, distributions get flack even when the hardware's supported but someone can't figure out how to install the nVidia driver.

Now, let's say you buy that same model year and make chevy. Would you be ok with all those issues even though the guy with the free car is just fine with his?

It depends on whether or not you knew about the issues up front and how much you paid. People put up with a lot of BS with crap that they pay for, just because you paid for a copy of Windows or a machine to get OS X doesn't guarantee you any amount of ease of use and in fact the license says exactly the opposite.

If they were to sell version of OS X that could be installed on any x86 hardware, someone like myself (or really anyone that has ever used OS X) would expect it to be the exact same. The same ease of use, the same carefree attitude when plugging in drives, printers, scanners... the works, but that cannot be guaranteed if the user could be using any number of different graphics cards, expansion cards, or motherboards.

And 99% of it would still be the same. All of the same drives, printers, scanners, etc will work just fine because the drivers already exist. The only new major things Apple would have to support would be motherboard chipsets and the embedded storage controllers, NICs and sound cards that come with them. If it works with Darwin then it should work with OS X just fine as well. The only reason "PC" video cards don't work is because of the special firmware on them that Apple requires.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: indigo196

Originally posted by: TheStu
They would also get a lot of backlash if they were to sell the OS openly. The OS is built to run on specific hardware, and has some freedom when it comes to printers, external drives and all the jazz, but if a person has a sort of off the wall system, and installs OS X, and then it isn't as stable as their friend's Mac Mini they will get peeved, trash Apple to high heaven, and then Apple gets bad press. Since Apple is a corporation they want to avoid bad press.

I apologize if any one else said this, i didn't notice it, but it isn't exactly an original argument.

With that annalogy then the best thing for Microsoft to do to "shore" up the bad press would be to make their own computers and lock all other hardware manufacturers out of the OS.

I understand that Apple is a combo company, but I just don't understand why they would get bad press when the same is not true of Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat and SuSE.

it would be the best thing they could do for stability.

 

[Nothinman]

it would be the best thing they could do for stability.

It would help a bit but not much as long as they're still relying on hardware manufacturers to provide drivers. So they would pretty much have to forcibly kill off the bad developers which probably wouldn't go over too well.

 

[Tarrant64]

This article is very good. Makes a few good points.

I think the word "intuitive" is overated. You're either computer savvy, or your not.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
This article is very good. Makes a few good points.

I think the word "intuitive" is overated. You're either computer savvy, or your not.

I disagree with you there. I consider myself computer savvy, I can use Windows, and OS X with equal proficiency, and some Linux, but prefer not to since I have never had a good experience with Linux.

Anyway, I consider myself to be computer savvy, but IMO OS X is simple easier to use, things are in a more logical place. It's like saying, I think the work intuitive in kitchens is overrated, you can either cook or you can't... I realize the analogy is a little off, but bear with me. If you have a kitchen where things are laid out logically, pots and pans next to the stove for example, spices all together, fridge organized as well, you can get to what you need more quickly, and therefore will have a better cooking experience. But if you are in a friend's kitchen, and don't know where anything is, and nothing make sense, and the sink if full of all the stuff you need, the basil is in the cabinet with the cereal, the pepper is up with the pretzels, you get annoyed quickly, and waste time just looking for stuff when you could have been cooking.

OS X is the organized kitchen that lets you get straight to work. Windows is the friend's kitchen that is arranged differently, and a little messy. Linux for me is the kitchen that is completely out of order... oh yea, if you want to cook eggs you have to go get them out of the chickens yourself, and forge your own pan. But that is just me and Linux, I don't bother it, and it doesn't bother me.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
This article is very good. Makes a few good points.

I think the word "intuitive" is overated. You're either computer savvy, or your not.

I disagree with you there. I consider myself computer savvy, I can use Windows, and OS X with equal proficiency, and some Linux, but prefer not to since I have never had a good experience with Linux.
Anyway, I consider myself to be computer savvy, but IMO OS X is simple easier to use, things are in a more logical place. It's like saying, I think the work intuitive in kitchens is overrated, you can either cook or you can't... I realize the analogy is a little off, but bear with me. If you have a kitchen where things are laid out logically, pots and pans next to the stove for example, spices all together, fridge organized as well, you can get to what you need more quickly, and therefore will have a better cooking experience. But if you are in a friend's kitchen, and don't know where anything is, and nothing make sense, and the sink if full of all the stuff you need, the basil is in the cabinet with the cereal, the pepper is up with the pretzels, you get annoyed quickly, and waste time just looking for stuff when you could have been cooking.

OS X is the organized kitchen that lets you get straight to work. Windows is the friend's kitchen that is arranged differently, and a little messy. Linux for me is the kitchen that is completely out of order... oh yea, if you want to cook eggs you have to go get them out of the chickens yourself, and forge your own pan. But that is just me and Linux, I don't bother it, and it doesn't bother me.

Hey, I agree with your comment there. My experience has been relatively the same. I was trying to say the same thing though, I guess. I mean, those who aren't so-called computer savvy may be able to only grasp one of those OS's, and not multiple ones. Does that make sense? Sorry for the misunderstanding. That wasn't meant to be for or against any of those OS's.

With the last statement as Linux, I like the way you worded that.

 

[Nothinman]

Anyway, I consider myself to be computer savvy, but IMO OS X is simple easier to use, things are in a more logical place.

I have the exact opposite experience, every time I have to use a Mac I get frustrated pretty quickly.

 

[umrigar]

I just tried VNC to my home PC box.

CTRL-click = right click. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

 

[umrigar]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
This article is very good. Makes a few good points.

I think the word "intuitive" is overrated. You're either computer savvy, or your not.

I know pleny of Mac and Windows users who cannot grasp single-click vs double-click.
They double-click links on web pages. They are clueless and can barely use the computer.

Don't ask them about "reply to all" vs "reply" in email, or anything remotely technical.
They view a PC as a TV set, an appliance they only want to push a few buttons & make it work.

 

[Nothinman]

They view a PC as a TV set, an appliance they only want to push a few buttons & make it work.

Then they should be given a different job, if they're not even willing to learn how to use the tools required for their job they shouldn't be there.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

They view a PC as a TV set, an appliance they only want to push a few buttons & make it work.

Then they should be given a different job, if they're not even willing to learn how to use the tools required for their job they shouldn't be there.

I tend to agree there. I was having this ridiculous argument with a person on another forum, he was complaining about the eject key on Macs. How he had never seen that symbol before, and it should be labelled. I am trying to figure out how he had never seen that symbol before, and why he never just, i don't know, pushed the freaking button to see what happens. It isn't a nuclear bunker, pushing the wrong button is not going to end the world.

Maybe there are just certain types of people in the world, those that push buttons and those that fear the button.