So you let it be known that Windows owns a majority of the market by providing lots of misinformation regarding the Apple platform?
So you let it be known that Windows owns a majority of the market by providing lots of misinformation regarding the Apple platform?
no no windows doesnt have a higher market share because of games! I wish games swayed the market that much! then everyone would be gamers!
I meant the answer to be "You wonder why windows has a higher market share?" because its superior at the moment.
*notice i said at the moment-in this industry, things can change, example, amd outperforming intel on many tests! I support both chip manufacturers. Macs just dont ring right to me, so i can honestly say i do not support the use of macs. If they turn it around, then sure more power to them-but i think apple is headed for the gutter to be quite honest. but who knows! they could be top of the hill in a decade! Then id be more than happy to switch platforms if they offer the flexibility of a windows machine
let me clarify propritary-im saying you have to buy parts that are specific for the mac generally such as the graphics card. in that sense i use the term incorrectly then. I was making the point it costs more for mac parts if you need to upgrade different components, thats all-yes i know their are workarounds-but as far as graphics cards go , that is not the case-but then again i cant imagine that many mac users upgrading their graphics.
there are many Propritary parts for the mac
I meant the answer to be "You wonder why windows has a higher market share?" because its superior at the moment.
*notice i said at the moment-in this industry, things can change, example, amd outperforming intel on many tests! I support both chip manufacturers. Macs just dont ring right to me, so i can honestly say i do not support the use of macs. If they turn it around, then sure more power to them-but i think apple is headed for the gutter to be quite honest. but who knows! they could be top of the hill in a decade! Then id be more than happy to switch platforms if they offer the flexibility of a windows machine
let me clarify propritary-im saying you have to buy parts that are specific for the mac generally such as the graphics card. in that sense i use the term incorrectly then. I was making the point it costs more for mac parts if you need to upgrade different components, thats all-yes i know their are workarounds-but as far as graphics cards go , that is not the case-but then again i cant imagine that many mac users upgrading their graphics.
there are many Propritary parts for the mac
I understand that Macs dont ring right to you and you don't support them, but the fact that PC zealots like yourself try so hard to make Macs look so bad by providing misleading and lots of misinformation regarding the Apple platform is just plain stupid. Don't support them, who cares. But don't go around posting BS to make the Mac look bad.
You have to buy a graphics card specifically for a PC. You can't throw in a Mac video card and expect it to work.
It does cost more to upgrade a Mac. You weren't even trying to point that out in your other arguments. You were saying Macs were propietary, when in fact, they aren't.
lets not name call-if macs are meant to be superior they will preveil, only time will tell. I think longhorn will be a huge determining factor...
you know what, i can't think of any reason as to why i would want to run perl scripts on my PC, or shake (?) for that matter...........?
He was responding to the claim that Windows can do everything a Mac can, and then some. Other examples would be Motion, all of the iLife apps save iTunes, Final Cut, etc. The Mac caters to a number of markets that the standard X86 world is having a tough time fully satisfying.
I do get a laugh out of the guy (Randum) who is attempting to make the absurd arguments that Windows is inherently better because it has a larger market share. By that same logic, Ford smacks around the likes of Ferrari, and you should run a Dell PC, as their huge market share makes them vastly better than white box machines.
But please, keep up the jokes, you guys humor me with your claims of proprietary hardware and watered down OSes!
you cant compare car market shares!! I knew someone was going to say that!
and dell PC is the same as a whitebox cept a whitebox is what you want inside put in by yourself!
Ford is a cheaper car manufacturer than ferarri because ferarri targets a different market. apples & oranges
Mac and windows are both targeting average desktop computer consumers apparently--if they were different all together(simlar to ferarris vs fords) then software would come out for both OSes-and games would be on both platforms.
obvioulsy users that have computers for desktop machines are buying Windows for a reason, not just because its trendy.
and dell PC is the same as a whitebox cept a whitebox is what you want inside put in by yourself!
Ford is a cheaper car manufacturer than ferarri because ferarri targets a different market. apples & oranges
Mac and windows are both targeting average desktop computer consumers apparently--if they were different all together(simlar to ferarris vs fords) then software would come out for both OSes-and games would be on both platforms.
obvioulsy users that have computers for desktop machines are buying Windows for a reason, not just because its trendy.
And applications like Quark, Illustrator, Photoshop, Word, Entourage, quiting for no apparent
reason (Font, Font cache, etc) is a improperly maintained box?
Pleasseeeeeee.
Atleast MS hide the font(s) problem long ago (Win95C).
When is Apple going to get on the schtick?
A Dell PC is far different than a white box.
1. all warranties accessed in a centralized place
2. tech support
3. full product/1 stop shopping for everything/fully assembled
4. proprietary parts (case, motherboard (last time I checked), often the PSU)
The Ferrari to Ford comparison bit you a bit, so lets try something a little more eye opening for you.
Sales of a typical Ferrari model vs. a higher end Ford mustang. They are both attempting to appeal to a market consisting of performance car enthusiasts. The Mustang ultimately wins out in market share, not because it is a superior vehicle. If you follow the incredibly flawed logic that having the most market share = having the best product, I pity you.
Not trolling, telling my opinion which the OP has asked for.
Ubuntu and Freebsd are built by people just like you and I. Therefore, it is the best of the best. Sure configuration can be a bear, but once you get it going, there is nothing out there that beats them. Unless you talk about gaming... which we all know which one wins that one. It definitely isnt a mac that wins at gaming.
As i said before, go and configure a same priced pc against the mac price, and you will blow the doors off of a mac at everything under the sun. Nuff said.
You guys a cracking me up!!
Tbirdkid: I don't play games. I have no time or no need, but yes, I would get a PC to play games.
I did configure a PC similar spec'd to my mac before I bought it, and the PC came out more expensive (I'm in Western Australia, very isolated, nothing comes cheap here).
The kernel of OS X is called Darwin (ever heard of it?). It's OSS, and has a large community supporting it. People like you and I. The only part that isn't open source is the GUI.
Randum: Your arguments about market share are quite unfortunate. This is what I believe happened. Apple made some really stupid mistakes in the late 80's to early 90's. Most people started buying PC's, and around this time, it became popluar for people to have computers in their homes. Apple was crap, so many were recommended to buy Compaq, IBM, HP, etc. As the years went by, more and more people started to get computers, and because their friends had a PC, that's what they went and got (didn't know about macs, and when told about, they were told that Apples were crap, and rightly so). As you can see, not many people were buying macs by this stage, hence the really low market share.
Apple realised that they were losing the battle, and so decided to make some drastic changes. They worked on Operating System projects such as Copland and Star Trek, both of which didn't come out how they wanted. The decided to try new blood and started looking at other OS's. First they looked at BeOS, but decided not to pursue it (can't remember why), then they looked at NeXT Step, run by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. It was UNIX based, an idea Apple had played around with earlier with Apple UNIX (which wasn't that great). They brought Jobs back, and he changed the direction of the company completely. They started working on OS X, using NeXT Step as a base.
Around the same time, the PC market was getting stronger, but Windows was getting worse imho (I remember that each successive release of Windows got more buggy). Most people didn't see any viable alternative, so there wasn't any worries for Microsoft. They did realise too that they needed to do something, and by 2000 were working to kill the Win9X line and move Windows completely to NT. A good move too, coz now Windows is no longer worse with each successive release, but much better.
In 2001, OS X 10.0 was released, but because it was not compatible with OS 9 and below, hardly any software existed for it. Not long after OS X came out, Windows XP came out, bringing a stable NT core to the home user in Home edition (although I personally went for Pro after suffering with WinMe for 6 months). Windows was still much better than OS X at that stage (this bit is just my opinion, although I really can't say because I never really used OS X before 10.2). However, in the time that Windows XP has been out, with 2 service packs, Mac OS X has seen 4 new versions, the last of which is light years ahead of Windows XP.
This begs the question, "Why doesn't Apple have a higher market share?". Answer, the same thing that has been going on since the problem first started - people still think Apple is crap (which it no longer is), people have the misconception that if it's Apple then it's expensive (ok, I admit, anything with "power" at the beginning i.e. "PowerMac G5" and "PowerBook G4" are overpriced imo), and there's still the thing of people recommending to other to get a PC because they don't know that Macs are now a viable option (and I think they will be even more so when they start shipping with Intel chip, coz quite frankly, the PPC doesn't cut it anymore). This is also why the amount of software appears less (but, look at all the OSS that you can get, it's just as much as on linux).
We'll have to wait till Windows Vista (a.k.a. Longhorn) comes out whether or not Microsoft will catch up and make the PC so good that Apple has no chance, or if it will only be better than Tiger (OS X 10.4). Because along side Longhorn, OS X 10.5 Leopard will be released, and one never knows what Apple has up their sleeve next.
Apple's market share is increasing, albeit very slowly. However, they are experiencing a phenomonal growth rate, higher than that of PC manufacturers (however, sales of PC are still higher at this point).
Macs are not toys any longer. I know many system admins and developers getting interested in them, myself included.
You mean OS X on future multi-core Pentium-M's, right?
Apple is going with Intel, not AMD.
And it's not that bad. AMD proccessors are superior, to be sure... But the entire platform that Intel represents now is beyond just proccessors nowadays.
For instance I've been looking at buying my first Intel-based machine lately. I've been doing my research and been examining the online technical documentation that Intel provides on it's motherboards.
Absolutely fantastic stuff (the documentation).. much better then you'd get from any board maker that I've looked at.
There thermal controls are something I was interested it, especially. I wanted to make a nice and quite machine and was epecting to have to buy some sort of external fan speed control. But on the intel board it can use ASIC controls based on the thermal sensors on various places on the motherboard and in the proccessor. It gave technical specifications of it, what types of fans to use, recommendations on heatsinks so that you get air on the voltage controls, rated amperages and such. All of that just for the fans. It can be programmed, from the bios, to control the fan speeds based on tempuratures and shut them off when they are not needed... so the machine will stay as quiet as possible.
Then the board has decent enough going-to-play-quake3-well type of graphics, which is perfect for a Unix workstation. No extra fans are needed to cool it, no extra room is needed in the case, no extra noise. Also supports remotely accessing the onboard administration controls to the motherboard, weither the system is on or not. All it has to be is plugged in to the power and network. It also has full hardware support for Suspend-to-RAM and Suspend-to-disk, so that I can leave my workstation on, but have it go to sleep, but have it wake up when I try to ssh into it. (hopefully Linux support for it's ACPI is mature enough, if not now, it will be later).
So it's a nice well documented motherboard and is designed by the same people that made the cpu.
To get the same thing with a AMD board I'd have to spend extra money on a seperate video card and buy a premium motherboard. I find it hard to find the same thing for the same features that have a onboard Nvidia card that is for the same price. Plus the Intel video is supported by Free drivers.
Plus another nice thing is that Intel's Dual Core 64bit cpus are more _inexpensive_ then AMD's. By almost half. They aren't as nice, but I can easily afford a nicer Intel dual core cpu then a AMD dual core cpu that I could barely afford. For the lowest end AMD dual core CPU I could get the highest end Intel dual core at around 3.2ghz and be able to even get hyperthreading support, for four logical cpus.
Although personally I think I'll wait a bit for the next generation to come out. They will have additional virtualization technology built into them with respect to the VM that I will find VERY handy when dealing with Linux on Xen.
(just think.. I run Xen, then run many client OSes on that in a virtualize machine with less then a 10% drop in performance(with aditional VT support from future Intel/AMD cpus). I'll be able to run NetBSD, various Linux's, and Window (eventually, and maybe OS X x86, too)), all at the same time and be able to even allocate each one a specific logical CPU if I wanted too. Then, get this, be able to MIGRATE the OS _while_it_is_running_ onto other Xen-based machines (with compatable cpus) on my network! And it's all Free and free.)
And as OS X is concerned those Pentium-M's are realy realy nice. They lack some of the multimedia features of the Pentium 4's but they more then make up for it by their low tempurature and low power consumption. I expect those to be the multicore in the near future, too.
On the other hand... I think that it's likely that OS X will use Intels hardware-based DRM in their systems so that you can't pirate it so easily. I say it's a 75% chance that your only going to be able to run OS X (legally) on Apple's hardware.
Apple is going with Intel, not AMD.
And it's not that bad. AMD proccessors are superior, to be sure... But the entire platform that Intel represents now is beyond just proccessors nowadays.
For instance I've been looking at buying my first Intel-based machine lately. I've been doing my research and been examining the online technical documentation that Intel provides on it's motherboards.
Absolutely fantastic stuff (the documentation).. much better then you'd get from any board maker that I've looked at.
There thermal controls are something I was interested it, especially. I wanted to make a nice and quite machine and was epecting to have to buy some sort of external fan speed control. But on the intel board it can use ASIC controls based on the thermal sensors on various places on the motherboard and in the proccessor. It gave technical specifications of it, what types of fans to use, recommendations on heatsinks so that you get air on the voltage controls, rated amperages and such. All of that just for the fans. It can be programmed, from the bios, to control the fan speeds based on tempuratures and shut them off when they are not needed... so the machine will stay as quiet as possible.
Then the board has decent enough going-to-play-quake3-well type of graphics, which is perfect for a Unix workstation. No extra fans are needed to cool it, no extra room is needed in the case, no extra noise. Also supports remotely accessing the onboard administration controls to the motherboard, weither the system is on or not. All it has to be is plugged in to the power and network. It also has full hardware support for Suspend-to-RAM and Suspend-to-disk, so that I can leave my workstation on, but have it go to sleep, but have it wake up when I try to ssh into it. (hopefully Linux support for it's ACPI is mature enough, if not now, it will be later).
So it's a nice well documented motherboard and is designed by the same people that made the cpu.
To get the same thing with a AMD board I'd have to spend extra money on a seperate video card and buy a premium motherboard. I find it hard to find the same thing for the same features that have a onboard Nvidia card that is for the same price. Plus the Intel video is supported by Free drivers.
Plus another nice thing is that Intel's Dual Core 64bit cpus are more _inexpensive_ then AMD's. By almost half. They aren't as nice, but I can easily afford a nicer Intel dual core cpu then a AMD dual core cpu that I could barely afford. For the lowest end AMD dual core CPU I could get the highest end Intel dual core at around 3.2ghz and be able to even get hyperthreading support, for four logical cpus.
Although personally I think I'll wait a bit for the next generation to come out. They will have additional virtualization technology built into them with respect to the VM that I will find VERY handy when dealing with Linux on Xen.
(just think.. I run Xen, then run many client OSes on that in a virtualize machine with less then a 10% drop in performance(with aditional VT support from future Intel/AMD cpus). I'll be able to run NetBSD, various Linux's, and Window (eventually, and maybe OS X x86, too)), all at the same time and be able to even allocate each one a specific logical CPU if I wanted too. Then, get this, be able to MIGRATE the OS _while_it_is_running_ onto other Xen-based machines (with compatable cpus) on my network! And it's all Free and free.)
And as OS X is concerned those Pentium-M's are realy realy nice. They lack some of the multimedia features of the Pentium 4's but they more then make up for it by their low tempurature and low power consumption. I expect those to be the multicore in the near future, too.
On the other hand... I think that it's likely that OS X will use Intels hardware-based DRM in their systems so that you can't pirate it so easily. I say it's a 75% chance that your only going to be able to run OS X (legally) on Apple's hardware.
We need to strengthen that push for elite status for you in forum issues. Your posts are always a pleasure to read. Well done sir.
I was really hoping that this thread would not degrade into a Windows / PC vs OSX / Mac flame war; thankfully, I got my questions answered before hell broke loose 
.
In either event, I think I've decided to not get a Mac ? at least not yet. One of the reasons for my decision is money: I recently put a set of larger tires on my 1955 Chevy and as a result, I have to make a few upgrades to the frontend (power steering box, upper control arms, etc.). So the extra money that I would have had for a Mac has now been spent.
Secondly, I went into this thread thinking that Mac performance greatly outweighed that of a PC ? given, I'd have to pay for it, but it would be worth it. Now I find that this isn't the case.
I would like to thank those of you who took the time to seriously answer my questions and offer your experiences to me, I really appreciate it (in particular, Lucifer and sparkyclarky). I've saved a copy of this thread for future reference as I did say that I will not be getting a Mac yet. Cheers and thanks again!
.In either event, I think I've decided to not get a Mac ? at least not yet. One of the reasons for my decision is money: I recently put a set of larger tires on my 1955 Chevy and as a result, I have to make a few upgrades to the frontend (power steering box, upper control arms, etc.). So the extra money that I would have had for a Mac has now been spent.
Secondly, I went into this thread thinking that Mac performance greatly outweighed that of a PC ? given, I'd have to pay for it, but it would be worth it. Now I find that this isn't the case.
I would like to thank those of you who took the time to seriously answer my questions and offer your experiences to me, I really appreciate it (in particular, Lucifer and sparkyclarky). I've saved a copy of this thread for future reference as I did say that I will not be getting a Mac yet
. Cheers and thanks again!TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter