Full Version: My thoughts about the Apple Corporation
I think that anything Apple puts out is the best. Apple adds style to the things they make. Everything from the iPod to the iMac. Also Apple's OS is the best OS in the world. Some would disagree, but i think so. I believe that if apple had a celebrity promoter they would go really really far. I recomeded a Apple products over any other. They can be pricey but after you get it you will know it's worth every penny.
the only thing apple has gotten right is the ipod, and if you know how you can get them for free (look down at my sig 
) other than that apple stuff is over priced and underpowered and very limited in compatability. bla.
) other than that apple stuff is over priced and underpowered and very limited in compatability. bla.
QUOTE (godan @ Mar 5 2005, 07:00 AM)
the only thing apple has gotten right is the ipod
I disagree ... the ipod is in my opinion nothing but a well advertised piece of expensive low tech consumer hardware ... Of ocurse, you can argue that it looks good and works flawlessly, but what doesn't these days? ... Also, what on earth is the point keeping the ipod platform closed?
I would argue that OS X is the best thing Apple has going for them ... of course, one might debate whether it's the "best in world", but its certainly good... However, what will happen when Longhorn arrives? Will OS X still be the best? ... I don't know, but Im 99% sure that the "quality" difference between Windows/Linux and Mac X will be so small that it simply won't be worth the trouble to change to mac ...
So when you, Jebron27, say that "Apple > All" I can only shake my head ... that is simply not true ...
I have to agree that the iPod isn't that great. My cell phone (Motorola MPx220) does everything your iPod does, except my cell phone even has a built in speaker as well as the ability to broadcast through Bluetooth. I am not a big apple fan but I would say that Quicktime is one thing they have going for them. Now, before anyone argues this one let me explain. File sizes are generally smaller with very decent quality. The only problem I have with Quicktime is that by default it wants to take over my system. I have never used Mac OS so I can't really argue or stick up for anyone on that aspect. I think Mac is too concerned about looks and less about functionality. Price certainly isn't going for them.
Apple is the worst company on the face of the planet.
I remember back in the 80's when there used to be Apple clones. What happened to them? Apple sued to have complete control over their hardware.
In the early days of the home PC ( the days of dos ) 70-80s Apple took things a step further by requiring licensinging (and I believe royalities). One couldn't really develop apps for Apple except by jumping through hoops.
Then in the 90's Apple announced they couldn't write an OS for the systems, so they licensed (Copland ?) an os from a 3rd party vendor.
Also in the 80-90's many people were introduced to "the bomb" error "-zyx" which no one ever really knew what the error meant, or how to correct the issue. Don't forget the AppleTalk stack.
On the verge of being wipped off the face of the planet, Bill Gates stepped in and allowed Office, ie, and outlook express to be ported to the Mac, and bought several million dollars worth of shares to keep the company going.
This past year, Apple returned the favor by prohibiting wm to play on their Ipod. How long did Apple resist allowing their products to be sold in places like Fry's, CompUSA, Microcenter, and many other places?
Let's not forget that Apple's offical release of OS 10 was a beta, and not compatible with many software applications.
But what about software? Well thanks again to Apple's restrictive policy you only have two choices really cheap or extremely high end. No room to grow as a user, no room for stages.
Is their product more stable, well yes, but you can't do as much, you don't have the freedom to pick what you want ~ any color as long as it's black attitude.
Apple is more of a monopoly than Msft ever will be.
This is not to say I don't think Msft should have been kept together ~ I liked the idea of the OS, Office, and Internet solution.
Here's what I get with Msft. A win95 machine that will burn DVD's, can Apple's 1995 software do this?
Msft solicits hardware and s/w vendors about compatibility and standards. They want to have as open and flexible environment as possible. They provide free api's and software. They give error messages that can be looked up.
I can choose between pegasus, sonic, expert, dazzle, adobe, mgi, roxio, and many other vendors when buying software, or I can write my own. As my abilities progress, so can the sofware I choose.
On my Xp Sp2 system I have software from 1994 to the present, which costs anywhere from free to $3000 USD.
It's like calucalators, some people use small credit card sized with only +-*/, others want square roots, some people need larger display, some need financial, statistics, graphicing, and then there are the HP 48 GX people. One buys calculators based upon needs. If Apple made calculators, there would only be small +-*/ and HP 48GX's.
Apple has a 30+ year history of being a dictatorship. It's their way or no way. Of course by doing this they have increased stability. It's really easy to keep things stable when you only support 10 manufacturers. As for security, it's a myth. Nobody cares about macs, so people don't attack them; is Swaziland (yes it is a real country) more secure than the US?
Does Apple have an easier environment? Of course they do, they can't do as much. Life is simple when you live in mud huts... don't need to worry about HVAC, plumbing, utilities and everything else.
As for the iPod, it's just a portable hard drive that can play certain types of music. I buy media players to play media, not to play certain types of media. Sony, Dell, and Creative have far better solutions, for that matter, so do some cell phones.
I could also go into job creation. If Silicon Valley depended upon Apple, the valley would never exist. Apple is slow to update and change, progress is shunned, and the freedom to innovate is abhorred.
I remember back in the 80's when there used to be Apple clones. What happened to them? Apple sued to have complete control over their hardware.
In the early days of the home PC ( the days of dos ) 70-80s Apple took things a step further by requiring licensinging (and I believe royalities). One couldn't really develop apps for Apple except by jumping through hoops.
Then in the 90's Apple announced they couldn't write an OS for the systems, so they licensed (Copland ?) an os from a 3rd party vendor.
Also in the 80-90's many people were introduced to "the bomb" error "-zyx" which no one ever really knew what the error meant, or how to correct the issue. Don't forget the AppleTalk stack.
On the verge of being wipped off the face of the planet, Bill Gates stepped in and allowed Office, ie, and outlook express to be ported to the Mac, and bought several million dollars worth of shares to keep the company going.
This past year, Apple returned the favor by prohibiting wm to play on their Ipod. How long did Apple resist allowing their products to be sold in places like Fry's, CompUSA, Microcenter, and many other places?
Let's not forget that Apple's offical release of OS 10 was a beta, and not compatible with many software applications.
But what about software? Well thanks again to Apple's restrictive policy you only have two choices really cheap or extremely high end. No room to grow as a user, no room for stages.
Is their product more stable, well yes, but you can't do as much, you don't have the freedom to pick what you want ~ any color as long as it's black attitude.
Apple is more of a monopoly than Msft ever will be.
This is not to say I don't think Msft should have been kept together ~ I liked the idea of the OS, Office, and Internet solution.
Here's what I get with Msft. A win95 machine that will burn DVD's, can Apple's 1995 software do this?
Msft solicits hardware and s/w vendors about compatibility and standards. They want to have as open and flexible environment as possible. They provide free api's and software. They give error messages that can be looked up.
I can choose between pegasus, sonic, expert, dazzle, adobe, mgi, roxio, and many other vendors when buying software, or I can write my own. As my abilities progress, so can the sofware I choose.
On my Xp Sp2 system I have software from 1994 to the present, which costs anywhere from free to $3000 USD.
It's like calucalators, some people use small credit card sized with only +-*/, others want square roots, some people need larger display, some need financial, statistics, graphicing, and then there are the HP 48 GX people. One buys calculators based upon needs. If Apple made calculators, there would only be small +-*/ and HP 48GX's.
Apple has a 30+ year history of being a dictatorship. It's their way or no way. Of course by doing this they have increased stability. It's really easy to keep things stable when you only support 10 manufacturers. As for security, it's a myth. Nobody cares about macs, so people don't attack them; is Swaziland (yes it is a real country) more secure than the US?
Does Apple have an easier environment? Of course they do, they can't do as much. Life is simple when you live in mud huts... don't need to worry about HVAC, plumbing, utilities and everything else.
As for the iPod, it's just a portable hard drive that can play certain types of music. I buy media players to play media, not to play certain types of media. Sony, Dell, and Creative have far better solutions, for that matter, so do some cell phones.
I could also go into job creation. If Silicon Valley depended upon Apple, the valley would never exist. Apple is slow to update and change, progress is shunned, and the freedom to innovate is abhorred.
QUOTE (svasutin @ Mar 8 2005, 07:36 PM)
Apple is the worst company on the face of the planet.
I remember back in the 80's when there used to be Apple clones. What happened to them? Apple sued to have complete control over their hardware.
In the early days of the home PC ( the days of dos ) 70-80s Apple took things a step further by requiring licensinging (and I believe royalities). One couldn't really develop apps for Apple except by jumping through hoops.
Then in the 90's Apple announced they couldn't write an OS for the systems, so they licensed (Copland ?) an os from a 3rd party vendor.
Also in the 80-90's many people were introduced to "the bomb" error "-zyx" which no one ever really knew what the error meant, or how to correct the issue. Don't forget the AppleTalk stack.
On the verge of being wipped off the face of the planet, Bill Gates stepped in and allowed Office, ie, and outlook express to be ported to the Mac, and bought several million dollars worth of shares to keep the company going.
This past year, Apple returned the favor by prohibiting wm to play on their Ipod. How long did Apple resist allowing their products to be sold in places like Fry's, CompUSA, Microcenter, and many other places?
Let's not forget that Apple's offical release of OS 10 was a beta, and not compatible with many software applications.
But what about software? Well thanks again to Apple's restrictive policy you only have two choices really cheap or extremely high end. No room to grow as a user, no room for stages.
Is their product more stable, well yes, but you can't do as much, you don't have the freedom to pick what you want ~ any color as long as it's black attitude.
Apple is more of a monopoly than Msft ever will be.
This is not to say I don't think Msft should have been kept together ~ I liked the idea of the OS, Office, and Internet solution.
Here's what I get with Msft. A win95 machine that will burn DVD's, can Apple's 1995 software do this?
Msft solicits hardware and s/w vendors about compatibility and standards. They want to have as open and flexible environment as possible. They provide free api's and software. They give error messages that can be looked up.
I can choose between pegasus, sonic, expert, dazzle, adobe, mgi, roxio, and many other vendors when buying software, or I can write my own. As my abilities progress, so can the sofware I choose.
On my Xp Sp2 system I have software from 1994 to the present, which costs anywhere from free to $3000 USD.
It's like calucalators, some people use small credit card sized with only +-*/, others want square roots, some people need larger display, some need financial, statistics, graphicing, and then there are the HP 48 GX people. One buys calculators based upon needs. If Apple made calculators, there would only be small +-*/ and HP 48GX's.
Apple has a 30+ year history of being a dictatorship. It's their way or no way. Of course by doing this they have increased stability. It's really easy to keep things stable when you only support 10 manufacturers. As for security, it's a myth. Nobody cares about macs, so people don't attack them; is Swaziland (yes it is a real country) more secure than the US?
Does Apple have an easier environment? Of course they do, they can't do as much. Life is simple when you live in mud huts... don't need to worry about HVAC, plumbing, utilities and everything else.
As for the iPod, it's just a portable hard drive that can play certain types of music. I buy media players to play media, not to play certain types of media. Sony, Dell, and Creative have far better solutions, for that matter, so do some cell phones.
I could also go into job creation. If Silicon Valley depended upon Apple, the valley would never exist. Apple is slow to update and change, progress is shunned, and the freedom to innovate is abhorred.
I remember back in the 80's when there used to be Apple clones. What happened to them? Apple sued to have complete control over their hardware.
In the early days of the home PC ( the days of dos ) 70-80s Apple took things a step further by requiring licensinging (and I believe royalities). One couldn't really develop apps for Apple except by jumping through hoops.
Then in the 90's Apple announced they couldn't write an OS for the systems, so they licensed (Copland ?) an os from a 3rd party vendor.
Also in the 80-90's many people were introduced to "the bomb" error "-zyx" which no one ever really knew what the error meant, or how to correct the issue. Don't forget the AppleTalk stack.
On the verge of being wipped off the face of the planet, Bill Gates stepped in and allowed Office, ie, and outlook express to be ported to the Mac, and bought several million dollars worth of shares to keep the company going.
This past year, Apple returned the favor by prohibiting wm to play on their Ipod. How long did Apple resist allowing their products to be sold in places like Fry's, CompUSA, Microcenter, and many other places?
Let's not forget that Apple's offical release of OS 10 was a beta, and not compatible with many software applications.
But what about software? Well thanks again to Apple's restrictive policy you only have two choices really cheap or extremely high end. No room to grow as a user, no room for stages.
Is their product more stable, well yes, but you can't do as much, you don't have the freedom to pick what you want ~ any color as long as it's black attitude.
Apple is more of a monopoly than Msft ever will be.
This is not to say I don't think Msft should have been kept together ~ I liked the idea of the OS, Office, and Internet solution.
Here's what I get with Msft. A win95 machine that will burn DVD's, can Apple's 1995 software do this?
Msft solicits hardware and s/w vendors about compatibility and standards. They want to have as open and flexible environment as possible. They provide free api's and software. They give error messages that can be looked up.
I can choose between pegasus, sonic, expert, dazzle, adobe, mgi, roxio, and many other vendors when buying software, or I can write my own. As my abilities progress, so can the sofware I choose.
On my Xp Sp2 system I have software from 1994 to the present, which costs anywhere from free to $3000 USD.
It's like calucalators, some people use small credit card sized with only +-*/, others want square roots, some people need larger display, some need financial, statistics, graphicing, and then there are the HP 48 GX people. One buys calculators based upon needs. If Apple made calculators, there would only be small +-*/ and HP 48GX's.
Apple has a 30+ year history of being a dictatorship. It's their way or no way. Of course by doing this they have increased stability. It's really easy to keep things stable when you only support 10 manufacturers. As for security, it's a myth. Nobody cares about macs, so people don't attack them; is Swaziland (yes it is a real country) more secure than the US?
Does Apple have an easier environment? Of course they do, they can't do as much. Life is simple when you live in mud huts... don't need to worry about HVAC, plumbing, utilities and everything else.
As for the iPod, it's just a portable hard drive that can play certain types of music. I buy media players to play media, not to play certain types of media. Sony, Dell, and Creative have far better solutions, for that matter, so do some cell phones.
I could also go into job creation. If Silicon Valley depended upon Apple, the valley would never exist. Apple is slow to update and change, progress is shunned, and the freedom to innovate is abhorred.
Hi. I'm a new memeber of this forum as I made a switch back to Windows after using Mac OS X for 4 years. I read your post and agree with it completely. Usually my first posts introduce who I am, but I felt compelled to chime in so here goes.
The thing that bothers me about Apple computer is the dictatorship mentality that you mention. You have very limited choices in the hardware line, and as was mentioned you either get the very low end or very high end--and even the high end does not compete with what you can get in Windows land. The most recent update in the Powermac line left many mac pros fuming, as the performance increases were minimal at best, after almost one year since the last power mac update. Many won't forget that Steve Jobs promised a 3Ghz G5 within a year...of course that was in 2003. What are we at today? 2.7 Ghz.
Remember the megahertz myth? As an act of desperation to salvage the G4 and explain away not having a system--and when I say "any," I mean the top-end $3000 systems--clocking in gigahertz territory, Apple drummed up a phony marketing slogan and ran misleading benchmarks on how an 867Mhz G4 ran all over a P4 2.4 Ghz. We all know where this mantra ended up.
Regarding pricing, I've always used the example of buying a notebook. You go to Apple's site as of this posting, and look up the price of a 15" notebook computer and you come up with one: the 15" powerbook with a G4 processor and combo drive (no DVD burner/Superdrive). I won't go into detail about the other lackluster specs, but your total price comes out to a whopping $2000, plus tax and shipping. Why is this so for a 15" laptop? The iBook is supposedly a consumer line, but even that is a joke (I've used a 12" iBook G3 as my main system for the past 4 years). You have the option of a 12" or 14" screen, but guess what? Both only support a max resolution of 1024x768. That's ridiculous!
Apple is all about marketting. Selling the sizzle and not the steak. Slick packaging. Chic looks over performance and functionality. And the same goes for OS X. OS X is a far slower, more resource and hardware intensive than any previous Mac OS, and the reason is simple: too much eye candy. Unfortunately, Apple in their infinite wisdom doesn't allow their users to adjust the interface in favor of performance out of the box--you have to resort to third party hacks that might make your system unstable.
In windows, I can right click "My Computer," pull up properties, click the advanced tab and performance button and I can choose if I want all the eye candy and graphical junk, or if I want to drop all that use a faster no-nonsense interface.
I've spent time around Apple users, and if there's one thing in common about them, they all hate Microsoft. But I'll say this: if there was no MS Office for the Mac, I would have never in a million years made the decision to switch to a Mac. Pure and simple. Apple is the gadfly and Microsoft is the cow. One depends on the other.
I think enough has been said here, and I'd just be repeating others words.
iPod - Marketing... not much else (oOo... a black silhouette dancing... I want an iPod!)
OSX - probably one of the better parts to come out of Mr Jobs' company, still fairly limited in terms of the diversity
One of the better things that Apple has produced is the Airport Extreme. The ability to combine a wireless network connection, and a place to hook up your computer to an audio system... now that's cool. The only downside, you have to do it with iTunes (which I absolutely cannot %$&*$^ stand). Yet another big marketing shindig to go along with the iPod.
The price of Apple merchandise is rediculous...not to mention that my Compaq Presario X1050CA laptop is much more powerful for everyday apps and gets more battery life than a Powerbook that would have cost me another $500 (at least).
My friend and I traded laptops for a while actually.
His
Powerbook
G4 1.33GHz
512MB PC3200 RAM
80GB 5400 RPM HD
Superdrive
ATI Radeon 9600 Mobility
15.4" WXGA
OSX 10.3
Mine
Compaq Presario X1050CA
Pentium-M 1.4GHz
1GB PC2700 RAM
80GB 5400 RPM HD
ATI Radeon 9200 Mobility
15.4" WXGA
Windows XP Professional
Fairly comparable hardware and overall systems, if you ask me. (Not just numbers... the Pentium-M 1.4 will keep up with a P4 2.4 anyday... search for comparison tests)
Anyways, we traded for about a week. He has a PC with Win2K, so he was still fairly used to using the Start Menu and icons and such. For me, even after a week of use, I could not get used to the Dock.
Waking up from hibernation... sheeze... the "extra security" setting on the Powerbook caused it to take about 1min30secs to wake up from the Apple equivalent of Hibernation (with no apps running). All you saw for a good long while was a black screen. Not very informative... at least you see a progress bar in Windows. On my Presario, 15 seconds, tops (even with stuff like Outlook, Opera, etc running).
All the extra eye candy just doesn't really do it for me. I find it somewhat disorienting when the icon that you're trying to click is moving underneath your cursor... I turned the dock magnification off within about 2 minutes.
As for the built-in defragger in OSX, it does defrag files automatically, but it'll do that even if the system is on batteries! Talk about a power drain when you don't want it. For both systems set to minimum screen brightness, maximum power saving, and wireless on, we used the computers like we normally would, chatting online, browsing, writing in Word, stuff like that. His computer lasted 2.5hrs... mine 5.
I could go on for a while about the things that I didn't really like about OSX, or that I wasn't impressed with overall. I'll mention though, that when my friend took my laptop, he was hassling me about how it would be slow with the anti-virus and firewall, etc etc... after the week was up, he said he never noticed they were there (NOD32 and Sygate).
Apples look pretty... but for anything outside of Multimedia... that's about as far as it goes.
iPod - Marketing... not much else (oOo... a black silhouette dancing... I want an iPod!)
OSX - probably one of the better parts to come out of Mr Jobs' company, still fairly limited in terms of the diversity
One of the better things that Apple has produced is the Airport Extreme. The ability to combine a wireless network connection, and a place to hook up your computer to an audio system... now that's cool. The only downside, you have to do it with iTunes (which I absolutely cannot %$&*$^ stand). Yet another big marketing shindig to go along with the iPod.
The price of Apple merchandise is rediculous...not to mention that my Compaq Presario X1050CA laptop is much more powerful for everyday apps and gets more battery life than a Powerbook that would have cost me another $500 (at least).
My friend and I traded laptops for a while actually.
His
Powerbook
G4 1.33GHz
512MB PC3200 RAM
80GB 5400 RPM HD
Superdrive
ATI Radeon 9600 Mobility
15.4" WXGA
OSX 10.3
Mine
Compaq Presario X1050CA
Pentium-M 1.4GHz
1GB PC2700 RAM
80GB 5400 RPM HD
ATI Radeon 9200 Mobility
15.4" WXGA
Windows XP Professional
Fairly comparable hardware and overall systems, if you ask me. (Not just numbers... the Pentium-M 1.4 will keep up with a P4 2.4 anyday... search for comparison tests)
Anyways, we traded for about a week. He has a PC with Win2K, so he was still fairly used to using the Start Menu and icons and such. For me, even after a week of use, I could not get used to the Dock.
Waking up from hibernation... sheeze... the "extra security" setting on the Powerbook caused it to take about 1min30secs to wake up from the Apple equivalent of Hibernation (with no apps running). All you saw for a good long while was a black screen. Not very informative... at least you see a progress bar in Windows. On my Presario, 15 seconds, tops (even with stuff like Outlook, Opera, etc running).
All the extra eye candy just doesn't really do it for me. I find it somewhat disorienting when the icon that you're trying to click is moving underneath your cursor... I turned the dock magnification off within about 2 minutes.
As for the built-in defragger in OSX, it does defrag files automatically, but it'll do that even if the system is on batteries! Talk about a power drain when you don't want it. For both systems set to minimum screen brightness, maximum power saving, and wireless on, we used the computers like we normally would, chatting online, browsing, writing in Word, stuff like that. His computer lasted 2.5hrs... mine 5.
I could go on for a while about the things that I didn't really like about OSX, or that I wasn't impressed with overall. I'll mention though, that when my friend took my laptop, he was hassling me about how it would be slow with the anti-virus and firewall, etc etc... after the week was up, he said he never noticed they were there (NOD32 and Sygate).
Apples look pretty... but for anything outside of Multimedia... that's about as far as it goes.
QUOTE
Apples look pretty... but for anything outside of Multimedia... that's about as far as it goes.
I will argue that there is nothing that an apple can do that a PC can't do these days...
What does OSX (Oh-Es-Ex)
have that Windows does not? Eye candy... But take a look around. Windows is completely customizable. There are programs out there that let you change the whole layout. I even saw a skin the other day that emulates OSX (why the hell would you want to do that!?!?) i am more concerned with functionality than appearance.
what is a difference between
warez and "Apple is the worst company on the face of the planet" ?
where is going now IBM ?
do you asked about microsoft in <www.applefn.org> ?
warez and "Apple is the worst company on the face of the planet" ?
where is going now IBM ?
do you asked about microsoft in <www.applefn.org> ?
QUOTE (un4given1 @ May 10 2005, 04:22 AM)
I will argue that there is nothing that an apple can do that a PC can't do these days...
What does OSX (Oh-Es-Ex) have that Windows does not? Eye candy... But take a look around. Windows is completely customizable. There are programs out there that let you change the whole layout. I even saw a skin the other day that emulates OSX (why the hell would you want to do that!?!?) i am more concerned with functionality than appearance.
What does OSX (Oh-Es-Ex)
have that Windows does not? Eye candy... But take a look around. Windows is completely customizable. There are programs out there that let you change the whole layout. I even saw a skin the other day that emulates OSX (why the hell would you want to do that!?!?) i am more concerned with functionality than appearance.While you can do multimedia editing on a PC, Macs are generally much more optimized towards this kind of market. All the big name brand 3D graphics companies use Macs for their development because they're optimized (hardware-wise) for this kind of work. However... HP has been stealing some of the market away since they've been working with Pixar lately...we'll have to see how that one turns out.
And yes, I'll take functionality over appearance... and add the appearance if I want it.
I will still argue that PC is just as good as a MAC for video editing and multimedia...
I think nowadays the difference between the propcessing power PCs and Macs is so minimal that you barely notice a difference in rendering/editing time... so now (and probably for the past 6 months-1 year) PCs can keep up with Macs on any level. 3-4 years ago that wasn't really the case. But, you can only look forward to see what the future holds in store.
In the olden days, Adobe used to code to the Mac, then slowly ported their software to a WinTel platform. These days, it's just the opposite.
It also appears Sonic is purchasing many Middle-Upper software video venders. Avid is still around, but Sonic is a Strong WinTel company.
It also appears Sonic is purchasing many Middle-Upper software video venders. Avid is still around, but Sonic is a Strong WinTel company.
As far as processing power is concerned, the x86 platform is exceeding the PowerPC by leaps and bounds. The new dual core AMD X2 processor runs circles around Intel's and IBMs lineup.
You'd think that a PowerMac that costs $3000 would give you the utmost in processing power, but that's no longer the case. And when I mention this to Macheads, the only thing they can say is "well yeah but that only works on Windows," or "speed is not everything, why do you need a machine that fast?" Of course they say a lot more than that, but it borderlines childishness, and I have to shake my head in disbelief.
I mean, I think OS X is a good OS, but I hate the way Apple does business and I hate the mentality that's prevalent in the Mac community. And it's because of that attitude that they're below 5% market share.
It's sad, but true.
You'd think that a PowerMac that costs $3000 would give you the utmost in processing power, but that's no longer the case. And when I mention this to Macheads, the only thing they can say is "well yeah but that only works on Windows," or "speed is not everything, why do you need a machine that fast?" Of course they say a lot more than that, but it borderlines childishness, and I have to shake my head in disbelief.
I mean, I think OS X is a good OS, but I hate the way Apple does business and I hate the mentality that's prevalent in the Mac community. And it's because of that attitude that they're below 5% market share.
It's sad, but true.
QUOTE (Crispy @ Mar 5 2005, 05:07 AM)
Of ocurse, you can argue that it looks good and works flawlessly, but what doesn't these days?
Anything made by Microsoft!
QUOTE (calyxman @ May 11 2005, 07:44 PM)
As far as processing power is concerned, the x86 platform is exceeding the PowerPC by leaps and bounds. The new dual core AMD X2 processor runs circles around Intel's and IBMs lineup.
You'd think that a PowerMac that costs $3000 would give you the utmost in processing power, but that's no longer the case. And when I mention this to Macheads, the only thing they can say is "well yeah but that only works on Windows," or "speed is not everything, why do you need a machine that fast?" Of course they say a lot more than that, but it borderlines childishness, and I have to shake my head in disbelief.
I mean, I think OS X is a good OS, but I hate the way Apple does business and I hate the mentality that's prevalent in the Mac community. And it's because of that attitude that they're below 5% market share.
It's sad, but true.
You'd think that a PowerMac that costs $3000 would give you the utmost in processing power, but that's no longer the case. And when I mention this to Macheads, the only thing they can say is "well yeah but that only works on Windows," or "speed is not everything, why do you need a machine that fast?" Of course they say a lot more than that, but it borderlines childishness, and I have to shake my head in disbelief.
I mean, I think OS X is a good OS, but I hate the way Apple does business and I hate the mentality that's prevalent in the Mac community. And it's because of that attitude that they're below 5% market share.
It's sad, but true.
You obviously have not used a Mac for a long period of time. I bought an iBook in late February and have been amazed by its performance. It is a 1.33GHz laptop with 768MB of RAM and I must say that it is the most flawless machine I have ever used. Even after installing Apple's new operating system, Mac OS 10.4 or Tiger, it seems to run even faster than it did with Panther. I find that it runs a lot faster than my 2.53GHz machine with 512MB of RAM and Windows XP. Of course, I am still a PC fanatic and am still very much involved in the PC world.
A few of my friends have PowerMac G5s and are so happy they have them, because they run flawlessly. Sure, you might have a crash, but only once in a blue moon, probably because you set something wrong or are new to the OS. This happened to me once I got my iBook, but it was only because I was new to the OS. On the other hand, PCs seem to crash all the time usually because of driver or hardware problems.
You can't really compare processing power between a Mac and a PC. They are completely different from each other. GHz mean nothing when comparing speeds between the two platforms. It is the performance that matters.
QUOTE (un4given1 @ May 10 2005, 11:31 AM)
I will still argue that PC is just as good as a MAC for video editing and multimedia...
I got the same opinion as you, but for everyday use, Wintel is far far better.
P.D. If you want a better Media player than Ipod, get a Rio Karma (I got one an it's awesome
)
QUOTE
PowerMac G5s ... run flawlessly. Sure, you might have a crash, but only once in a blue moon,
Huh ?I can't remember the last time an system XP crashed, perhaps a beta release in 2000?
QUOTE
1.33GHz laptop with 768MB of RAM
w/ 768 all systems run well, of course XP only needs 512. On my Dell, with 512 and 1.3 Inspirion, dvd+r, uw disp ($ 2000) I get up to 7 hours on a single battery; of course I use a customized hardware profile. Watch the Matix and still have 2 hours battery life, again on a single battery.QUOTE
faster than my 2.53GHz machine with 512MB
I would like to see a benchmark to back this up.QUOTE
PCs seem to crash all the time usually because of driver or hardware problems.
Aahh yes, all the freedom msft provides. They should just restict compatibility and reduce functionality. It's a Msft problem when vendors have s/w and drivers with bugs.You gotta be baiting us man.
Hi gamehead,
I've used OS X since 2001 back in the days when I messed with the PowerMacs at the university computer lab. Before I purchased my iBook G3 in December of 2001, the last mac I had ever purchased was an all-in-one Performa 200 that ran System 7.
Back in the day when OS 10.0 first debuted, things were slow. As time progressed with the advent of Puma we saw performance enhancments in the user interface and added support for DVD burning. In fact, 10.0 was so rough that Apple offered the upgrade CD for 10.1 for $20 at the time.
I concur that Jaguar, Panther, and now Tiger have increased the overall performance for OS X. It is still a very resource intensive OS, and one department you don't want to be lacking in is RAM. Nowadays, 512 MB is minimum and it actually is now standard on the consumer iMac, Powermac, and Powerbook. I expect the iBook to follow suit. I still feel the interface of OS X is not as responsive as Windows. Maybe OS 9 compares much better, but OS X is much heavier in the visual aesthetics department.
My contention isn't that the Powermac G5 or Powerbook G4 is not a fast machine. I think the G5 is a great processor indeed, and while I don't mind the G4, I do believe it's time for Apple to move on and put the old G4 to rest and try to either implement the G5 or find a variation of the G4 such as a dual core chip to use in the Powerbook.
I will argue, however, that for the price, I find it less compelling to buy another Mac when I can pay less and get the same performance and similar capabilities with a PC. I don't buy the argument that Windows is a bad operating system, as I've been running XP and 2000 for weeks without a crash. XP has run solid, and so has OS X for that matter. They're both great OSes.
If Apple does raise the bar with new products of its own, then I'd be happy to reconsider and may do all my windows and mac work on the same machine, as I own a copy of Virtual PC for the Mac.
I've used OS X since 2001 back in the days when I messed with the PowerMacs at the university computer lab. Before I purchased my iBook G3 in December of 2001, the last mac I had ever purchased was an all-in-one Performa 200 that ran System 7.
Back in the day when OS 10.0 first debuted, things were slow. As time progressed with the advent of Puma we saw performance enhancments in the user interface and added support for DVD burning. In fact, 10.0 was so rough that Apple offered the upgrade CD for 10.1 for $20 at the time.
I concur that Jaguar, Panther, and now Tiger have increased the overall performance for OS X. It is still a very resource intensive OS, and one department you don't want to be lacking in is RAM. Nowadays, 512 MB is minimum and it actually is now standard on the consumer iMac, Powermac, and Powerbook. I expect the iBook to follow suit. I still feel the interface of OS X is not as responsive as Windows. Maybe OS 9 compares much better, but OS X is much heavier in the visual aesthetics department.
My contention isn't that the Powermac G5 or Powerbook G4 is not a fast machine. I think the G5 is a great processor indeed, and while I don't mind the G4, I do believe it's time for Apple to move on and put the old G4 to rest and try to either implement the G5 or find a variation of the G4 such as a dual core chip to use in the Powerbook.
I will argue, however, that for the price, I find it less compelling to buy another Mac when I can pay less and get the same performance and similar capabilities with a PC. I don't buy the argument that Windows is a bad operating system, as I've been running XP and 2000 for weeks without a crash. XP has run solid, and so has OS X for that matter. They're both great OSes.
If Apple does raise the bar with new products of its own, then I'd be happy to reconsider and may do all my windows and mac work on the same machine, as I own a copy of Virtual PC for the Mac.
QUOTE (calyxman @ May 11 2005, 10:22 PM)
I do believe it's time for Apple to move on and put the old G4 to rest and try to either implement the G5 or find a variation of the G4 such as a dual core chip to use in the Powerbook.
Apple is working on a G5 Powerbook!
I wonder how expensive it will be when it first comes out... 
Hmmm,
Suddenly, Sony is in close competition for the worst company on the face of the planet.
Maybe this requires a poll
Suddenly, Sony is in close competition for the worst company on the face of the planet.
Maybe this requires a poll
Hmm to solve this problem, run mac on a intel pc. You'll see what works better. Mac has shot itself in the foot, by making the hardware so proprietary.
QUOTE (keytotime @ Nov 7 2005, 02:28 PM)
Hmm to solve this problem, run mac on a intel pc. You'll see what works better. Mac has shot itself in the foot, by making the hardware so proprietary.
People seem to forget this about Apple... Apple was originally a hardware company! Their software was designed to run on their hardware.
It was interesting to see Apple make the switch to Intel. They're going to be using x86 processors, since they finally realized that that's where all the development is nowadays. There's just no competition to drive Motorola and IBM to develop a better G4/G5 chip.
Not to mention (although it's been said before), that OSX uses a LOT more memory than Windows XP. For the absolute basics (i.e. web browsing, writing documents, e-mail, the simple stuff) XP is just peachy with 256MB of RAM. Forget about running OSX 10.4 with 256MB RAM... it'll be slower than a turtle on valium.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.