Steve Jobs - Leading Candidate to Exterminate the PC

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I don't know about average joe is, but I actually used macOS9 and MacOSX alongside windows, linux, solaris, and freeBSD and I gotta tell you that I hate macOS. everything else has a place, but not macos.

Also, you completely ignore the price issue. You argue for controlled hardware and software, aka the apple model. But such control comes at the price of being more expensive. Even if average joe DOES enjoy a mac more, does he enjoy it more enough to justify the extra price tag?

The thing is everyone who can afford a PC can afford a Mac, just not a new one. I'm surprised that as a linux user you don't see the benefit of Mac OS, it's a great GUI coupled with a BSD subsystem, meaning that all the integration you need with linux servers is availiable to you, without thirdparty software and it has a good GUI for when you need to use that side of things, for me Mac OS is what Ubuntu used to advertise itself as Linux for human beings.

Obviously there a huge differences between Mac OS and Linux, but the interconnectivity, and the idea that if you get annoyed with a GUI thing just fix it in terminal is there.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Its not a matter of being able to afford it, it is a matter of being willing to spend the extra money. Most Americans could also afford a more expensive car, bigger TV, or an intel extreme cpu for 1000$... if they skimped elsewhere, including eating cheaper food, and other items.

A used apple is more expensive then other used computers. It is simply a matter of competition, apple competes with EVERYONE else at once. You want linux or windows? build your own box, or buy whitebox, or buy an HP, dell, lenovo, emachines, gateway, acer, etc etc. And you can install it. You can also get a CPU from intel or amd or even via, video card from nvidia or amd or even someone else. Apple has to compete with everyone... besides which they take a premium for their name and style. Even used, it is more expensive.

So as a customer, given the choice of what to buy, most chose not to buy a mac. If your assertion that "average joe" enjoys macOS more then windows is correct (which id disagree with) than it means price is even MORE important (because apple gets points for "better" os but loses them back on price)... I believe that for average joe macOS is worse AND the price is worse... that combination manifests in single digit market share despite being the most well known brand name thanks to their amazing advertising campaigns.

As to why I don't see the value of MacOS... apple has, by far, the worst DRM and the least care to the rights of customers, they make MS look like saints (and I am pretty critical of MS's behavior).
also macs don't "just work", I worked with large amounts of macs and windows machines concurrently and the macs were far less reliable and more prone to crashing and problems. Not to mention being less usable IMAO... so I think when average joe gets to use both they will still choose windows.

As a user of linux, solaris and freeBSD who actually enjoys them, I am not deluded into thinking they are better than MS in everyway possible ever, if they were people would be using them more. It is not enough to be free either... the fact is, the average customer will rather PAY money to use windows over linux/solaris/bsd. Yet doesn't want to pay money to use macos over windows.
That isn't my own personal preferences applied to "average joe", but simply looking at market share and saying "as a free society, people use what they want to use, thus percentage of market share = percentage of population that wants to use it (at whatever its price is, some might "want" something more expensive but not enough to pay for it)"
 
Last edited:

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
20,894
3,246
126
Mac>PC, and PC!=Mac

oh really?

My experience... Mac = Intel = Windows gets processor first.

You cant argue on a mac, because the last time I checked, mac's were still intel, and are staying intel.

The thing is everyone who can afford a PC can afford a Mac, just not a new one.

And with that price tag, you can get a PC far greater then a MAC holding the same scenario.

Gah im done...

MAC IS INTEL.
REGARDLESS THE PROCESSOR IS BY INTEL.

The mac platform is just an overpriced intel enterprise workstation setup with a funky bios.
You wanna still say a MAC > PC when its the same thing?
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Its not a matter of being able to afford it, it is a matter of being willing to spend the extra money. Most Americans could also afford a more expensive car, bigger TV, or an intel extreme cpu for 1000$... if they skimped elsewhere, including eating cheaper food, and other items.

A used apple is more expensive then other used computers. It is simply a matter of competition, apple competes with EVERYONE else at once. You want linux or windows? build your own box, or buy whitebox, or buy an HP, dell, lenovo, emachines, gateway, acer, etc etc. And you can install it. You can also get a CPU from intel or amd or even via, video card from nvidia or amd or even someone else. Apple has to compete with everyone... besides which they take a premium for their name and style. Even used, it is more expensive.

So as a customer, given the choice of what to buy, most chose not to buy a mac. If your assertion that "average joe" enjoys macOS more then windows is correct (which id disagree with) than it means price is even MORE important (because apple gets points for "better" os but loses them back on price)... I believe that for average joe macOS is worse AND the price is worse... that combination manifests in single digit market share despite being the most well known brand name thanks to their amazing advertising campaigns.

As to why I don't see the value of MacOS... apple has, by far, the worst DRM and the least care to the rights of customers, they make MS look like saints (and I am pretty critical of MS's behavior).
also macs don't "just work", I worked with large amounts of macs and windows machines concurrently and the macs were far less reliable and more prone to crashing and problems. Not to mention being less usable IMAO... so I think when average joe gets to use both they will still choose windows.

As a user of linux, solaris and freeBSD who actually enjoys them, I am not deluded into thinking they are better than MS in everyway possible ever, if they were people would be using them more. It is not enough to be free either... the fact is, the average customer will rather PAY money to use windows over linux/solaris/bsd. Yet doesn't want to pay money to use macos over windows.
That isn't my own personal preferences applied to "average joe", but simply looking at market share and saying "as a free society, people use what they want to use, thus percentage of market share = percentage of population that wants to use it (at whatever its price is, some might "want" something more expensive but not enough to pay for it)"

It's interesting that you don't think Mac's "Just work" because that's one of the things that really put me on to them, In my experience they do, I've had about 10-15 Macs and more PC's than I can count, at some point every one of my PC's has crashed and or died, I've had one broken Mac, and it was a MacBook Air that I broke by closing something in it and breaking the screen (apple fixed it for free :) I don't really consider price when buying stuff, I just by the best of whatever it is, so I guess I can't really comment on price.

oh really?

My experience... Mac = Intel = Windows gets processor first.

Mac = Intel... what?! Intel = Windows get's processor first.? I suppose if your concerned about which order processors get delivered to companies then this is a concern?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
oh really?

My experience... Mac = Intel = Windows gets processor first.

You cant argue on a mac, because the last time I checked, mac's were still intel, and are staying intel.



And with that price tag, you can get a PC far greater then a MAC holding the same scenario.

Gah im done...

MAC IS INTEL.
REGARDLESS THE PROCESSOR IS BY INTEL.

The mac platform is just an overpriced intel enterprise workstation setup with a funky bios.
You wanna still say a MAC > PC when its the same thing?

Mac isn't the same thing as PC, that was discussed earlier in this thread, again when your looking at high end computers comparing prices isn't really a major concern, they all cost a lot, you can get a Mac that will beat some high end gaming PC's for the same price, not necessarily brand new.

I don't really understand why your hung up on the processor manufacturer. So I don't really know what you mean by MAC IS INTEL!
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Mac isn't the same thing as PC, that was discussed earlier in this thread
Where it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt with factual evidence, that macs are indeed PCs. In fact, macs were being sold as "PCs" by apple years before the intel x86 and IBM-PC even existed.
The only reason to not call them PCs is if you are drinking the company coolaid and repeating the misinformation from their recent "hi I am a mac/and I am a PC" ads... which, seeing as you believe that macs "just work" seems highly likely. Despite what apple advertising might tell you, apples don't "just work". Actual statistics from repair locations I have seen show them to have one of the worst failure rates amongst sellers. And my anecdotal evidence (my own personal experiences which are not enough to form a sufficient statistical pool) agree.
 
Last edited:

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
20,894
3,246
126
Mac = Intel... what?! Intel = Windows get's processor first.? I suppose if your concerned about which order processors get delivered to companies then this is a concern?

*goes smashes head on a wall*

When a cpu gets bin'd, who do you think get first dibs on them?

Macs? You really think apple gets any near significant quantities of cpus?

The first to get any intel cpu's are the direct wholesale partners.

Usually the first dibs are probably dell & hp.

Now Dell and HP have probably way more sales on the enterprise sector alone then macs.

Dell and HP uses multi platform OS, from windows -> Linux which they label PC.

Now Apple OS = A embellished form of linux.

Apple wants to have there nose in the freaken air and not call there system PC's go ahead.

If you tear down an apple, its a freaken PC, down to the intel parts.

Now you can argue as much as you want, but i tell ya again, WHY IS IT BY INTEL IF ITS NOT A PC.

MAC users seriously needs to get the 15 foot stick up there ass removed.
They pay for overpriced hardware unless that NICHE matches you like a glove.

And ive said where the niches are.

But now, with upcoming monster machines which can support 8 cores on a 4 socket platform (MC by AMD, and Beckton by Intel).... u wanna compare this against a mac?

Seriously dont make me laugh.


Your defending a MAC in a PC thread, because its called cpu and overclocking.
Last time i heard u cant Overclock a MAC and they used the same exact intel cpu.

If you want mac love, i suggest you go here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=45

your not gonna get it in cpu and overclocking, unless its steve jobs saying he developed a revolutionary new quanitum cpu.
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
*goes smashes head on a wall*

When a cpu gets bin'd, who do you think get first dibs on them?

Macs? You really think apple gets any near significant quantities of cpus?

The first to get any intel cpu's are the direct wholesale partners.

Usually the first dibs are probably dell & hp.

Now Dell and HP have probably way more sales on the enterprise sector alone then macs.

Dell and HP uses multi platform OS, from windows -> Linux which they label PC.

Now Apple OS = A embellished form of linux.

Apple wants to have there nose in the freaken air and not call there system PC's go ahead.

If you tear down an apple, its a freaken PC, down to the intel parts.

Now you can argue as much as you want, but i tell ya again, WHY IS IT BY INTEL IF ITS NOT A PC.

MAC users seriously needs to get the 15 foot stick up there ass removed.
They pay for overpriced hardware unless that NICHE matches you like a glove.

And ive said where the niches are.

But now, with upcoming monster machines which can support 8 cores on a 4 socket platform (MC by AMD, and Beckton by Intel).... u wanna compare this against a mac?

Seriously dont make me laugh.

Firstly I don't care in what order companies recieve CPU's I couldn't care less if Mac's CPU's were made of stale cheese as long as they work

Mac's arn't PC's as by default they don't run Windows. Hardware is similar, but the software/ hardware combo is what makes the difference.

"But now, with upcoming monster machines which can support 8 cores on a 4 socket platform (MC by AMD, and Beckton by Intel).... u wanna compare this against a mac?

Seriously dont make me laugh."

Apple will get those processors in good time, but as they currently have dual CPU 6 Core systems, I don't really know that it's an issue, I'd be more than happy to compare these monsters to one of those monsters.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
It's interesting that you don't think Mac's "Just work" because that's one of the things that really put me on to them, In my experience they do, I've had about 10-15 Macs and more PC's than I can count, at some point every one of my PC's has crashed and or died,

Working in IT for public education my entire career, I've seen and played with my fair share of both Macs and PCs... and I don't find the hardware failure rate of Macs to be significantly better or worse than PCs.

Management, software wise, for PCs is no source of pain for me either. I don't worry about viruses/spyware because of programs like Deep Freeze and I push updates down via Group Policy.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Working in IT for public education my entire career, I've seen and played with my fair share of both Macs and PCs... and I don't find the hardware failure rate of Macs to be significantly better or worse than PCs.

Management, software wise, for PCs is no source of pain for me either. I don't worry about viruses/spyware because of programs like Deep Freeze and I push updates down via Group Policy.

Couldn't agree more, if you know what your doing there's nothing to say both PC's and Macs cant be a useful tool, but for me less effort has been envolved making Macs "just work"
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
When I think Apple, I think LIMITED.

Let's face it, companies like apple LIMIT your freedom. Once you buy into their product you basically purchase LIFETIME purchases from Apple. No thanks. I like my freedom and it's just a matter of time before more and more people realize that Apple LIMITS their freedom.

I won't even get into how overpriced their products are and hype/hipster image associated with it.

I have never and WILL never purchase Apple OR Apple like products (Xbox/PS3....Consoles in general fall into it as well).
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
When I think Apple, I think LIMITED.

Let's face it, companies like apple LIMIT your freedom. Once you buy into their product you basically purchase LIFETIME purchases from Apple. No thanks. I like my freedom and it's just a matter of time before more and more people realize that Apple LIMITS their freedom.

I won't even get into how overpriced their products are and hype/hipster image associated with it.

I have never and WILL never purchase Apple OR Apple like products (Xbox/PS3....Consoles in general fall into it as well).

i disagree Apple attempt to limit your freedom, and people work they're way round it, like Microsoft do with the Xbox or Sony do with the PS3.

I won't even get into how overpriced their products are and hype/hipster image associated with it.

What's a "hipster"
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
i disagree Apple attempt to limit your freedom, and people work they're way round it, like Microsoft do with the Xbox or Sony do with the PS3.

My way of "making things work THE way I want to" is simply not purchasing LIMITED product to begin with OR support ANY company that posses the type of business purpose.

I simply fail to understand the hackers that get these devices to work. I understand its a challange thing, but why bother buying it to begin with (if you know device will limit you). PLENTY of products out there that do it from the get go.

EACH time ANYONE purchases Apple products you basically ask these companies to limit their product even more (support their business purpose).

Same goes for consoles...

Then people wonder why the products that HAVE "freedom" are dieing and game quality is crappy etc.

Above is EXACTLY why.
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
When I think Apple, I think LIMITED.

Let's face it, companies like apple LIMIT your freedom. Once you buy into their product you basically purchase LIFETIME purchases from Apple. No thanks. I like my freedom and it's just a matter of time before more and more people realize that Apple LIMITS their freedom.

I won't even get into how overpriced their products are and hype/hipster image associated with it.

I have never and WILL never purchase Apple OR Apple like products (Xbox/PS3....Consoles in general fall into it as well).

I agree, I do not own an xbox/PS3, and the macs I dealt with weren't my own. I will also never buy into such a freedom limiting product.


i disagree Apple attempt to limit your freedom, and people work they're way round it

If they aren't limiting your freedom, what exactly are people working their way around?

Also, for all that is holy and just it is THEIR.
Their - Something that belongs to them; their way, their emotions, their house, their feeling, their dog, their blunder, their drm, their friends (the friends which belong to them).
They're - They are; They are jerks, they are greedy, they are not my friends.

like Microsoft do with the Xbox or Sony do with the PS3
Didn't you just claim apple does NOT limit your freedom? and maybe you haven't noticed but he was specifying that he WOULDN'T buy a sony/MS console...and neither would I.

What's a "hipster"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCL5UgxtoLs
see that guy that says "I am a mac"? that is a hipster.
or you can just look it up in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(contemporary_subculture)
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
My way of "making things work THE way I want to" is simply not purchasing the product to begin with.

I simply fail to understand the hackers that get these devices to work. I understand its a challange thing, but why bother buying it to begin with (if you know device will limit you). PLENTY of products out there that do it from the get go.

EACH time ANYONE purchases Apple products you basically ask these companies to limit their product even more (support their business purpose).

Same goes for consoles...

Then people wonder why the products that HAVE "freedom" are dieing and game quality is crappy etc.

Above is EXACTLY why.

I spend a lot more time getting Windows how I want it, than I do with OSX, Installing anti-virus, installing anti spyware, adware, installing firefox so I don't have to use IE, changing the UAC controls so it dosen't piss me off asking for permision every 10 seconds, I could go on...


I agree, I do not own an xbox/PS3, and the macs I dealt with weren't my own. I will also never buy into such a freedom limiting product.

The thing is that your looking at things as very black and white, Mac OS is not as limited as say iOS, but not as open as Linux or Windows, but with the open-ness and compatibility of windows comes terabytes of potential crap out there, virus' included. So for me I'd sacrafice some of my "freedom" for the security and ease of use that comes with OSX (all this being said Linux FTW)
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I agree, I do not own an xbox/PS3, and the macs I dealt with weren't my own. I will also never buy into such a freedom limiting product.




If they aren't limiting your freedom, what exactly are people working their way around?

Also, for all that is holy and just it is THEIR.
Their - Something that belongs to them; their way, their emotions, their house, their feeling, their dog, their blunder, their drm, their friends (the friends which belong to them).
They're - They are; They are jerks, they are greedy, they are not my friends.


Didn't you just claim apple does NOT limit your freedom? and maybe you haven't noticed but he was specifying that he WOULDN'T buy a sony/MS console...and neither would I.

I said they weren't limiting freedom they were trying to.
 

Puddle Jumper

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,835
1
0
And as for the whole compatibility issues with old mac hardware, as far as I'm aware, there aren't any software limitations stopping old Mac compatible hardware working in current systems... feel free to correct me with an example if I'm wrong, but as a user of Mac's and PC's I can safely say that the majority of the problems I encounter that result from the operating system come from the Windows side.

Didn't Apple completely drop PowerPC support with Snow Leopard?
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
The thing is that your looking at things as very black and white, Mac OS is not as limited as say iOS, but not as open as Linux or Windows, but with the open-ness and compatibility of windows comes terabytes of potential crap out there, virus' included. So for me I'd sacrafice some of my "freedom" for the security and ease of use that comes with OSX (all this being said Linux FTW)
This is false, you are not sacrificing freedom for security with a mac, you are just sacrificing freedom because apple wants to rip you off more (and happens to be more secure). Open source os manage to give you the most freedom AND the most security, sacrificing freedom is not a method to gain security in computers

Freedom: Open Source OS > Windows > MacOS
Functionality: Windows > Open Source OS > MacOS
Malware resistance: Open Source OS > MacOS > Windows
Best Price (greatest = cheapest): Open Source OS > Windows > MacOS
Ease of Use: Personal preference, and debatable, but generally speaking MacOS AND Windows > Open Source OS

In a mac you don't sacrifice freedom FOR security... you sacrifice freedom in a manner completely unrelated to security; which happens to be greater then windows. But open source OS is both more secure AND gives you more freedom.

They did, so you can't drop an old PowerPC processor into a new intel mac, the same way you can't drop a pentium 4 into an Xeon socket...

of course you can't drop a power PC processor into an intel mac socket...
the issue is that if you HAVE a powerPC mac that WORKS, you cannot upgrade the OS to the latest macOS version.
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
This is false, you are NOT sacrificing freedom for security with a mac, you are just sacrificing freedom.

Freedom: Open Source OS > Windows > MacOS
Functionality: Windows > Open Source OS > MacOS
Malware resistance: Open Source OS > MacOS > Windows
Best Price (greatest = cheapest): Open Source OS > Windows > MacOS
Ease of Use: Personal preference, and debatable, but generally speaking MacOS AND Windows > Open Source OS

In a mac you don't sacrifice freedom FOR security... you sacrifice freedom in a manner completely unrelated to security; which happens to be greater then windows. But open source OS is both more secure AND gives you more freedom.

The other thing is (probably should have mentioned this before) what freedom am I sacraficing anyway?! Granted with a closed system like the iPhone or other iOS devices there's definately a lack of freedom but I don't see it in OS X.... :)

Also buying Windows OS, is way more expensive than Mac OS, it's the hardware thats more expensive.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Now you are just trying to trip me up... apple is a "closed system", it controls everything about. You yourself refer to it as a closed as system.

Freedom from DRM, freedom to chose any hardware or software you want, and more.
Here is an explanation of what software freedom means: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Software freedom from greatest to least: FOSS OS > windows > macOS
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Couldn't agree more, if you know what your doing there's nothing to say both PC's and Macs cant be a useful tool, but for me less effort has been envolved making Macs "just work"

I haven't found Macs to require any less effort to make them work than PCs.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Now you are just trying to trip me up... apple is a "closed system", it controls everything about. You yourself refer to it as a closed as system.

Freedom from DRM, freedom to chose any hardware or software you want, and more.
Here is an explanation of what software freedom means: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Software freedom from greatest to least: FOSS OS > windows > macOS

Ok, that's fair, the reason I called it a closed system is the reference to the fact that it only runs on certain hardware, but I wouldn't really call it impeaching on freedom, I can choose any software I want, that part is completely free, and DRM? Doesn't really affect me as far as I'm aware...
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
I spend a lot more time getting Windows how I want it, than I do with OSX, Installing anti-virus, installing anti spyware, adware, installing firefox so I don't have to use IE, changing the UAC controls so it dosen't piss me off asking for permision every 10 seconds, I could go on...

There is no rule for ALL. MS can't satisfy EVERYONE's flavors.....Apple just makes it easier/dummy proof (nothing more).

I think MS reached a decent middle ground....but no, NOTHING is perfect.

The thing is that your looking at things as very black and white, Mac OS is not as limited as say iOS, but not as open as Linux or Windows, but with the open-ness and compatibility of windows comes terabytes of potential crap out there, virus' included. So for me I'd sacrafice some of my "freedom" for the security and ease of use that comes with OSX (all this being said Linux FTW)

LMAO

If it works for you, you like it better, go with Apple (I don't care). I think your point is silly and newbish....but that's just me.

The other thing is (probably should have mentioned this before) what freedom am I sacraficing anyway?! Granted with a closed system like the iPhone or other iOS devices there's definately a lack of freedom but I don't see it in OS X.... :)

Also buying Windows OS, is way more expensive than Mac OS, it's the hardware thats more expensive.

Not even the hardware, I mean, yes apple overcharges you AND some for hardware...but most of what you pay for is white case/design.
 
Last edited: