<< <i>"The PC kills the Mac...There was a reason Macs don't sell all that well....They suck!"
No. The reason why PCs sell better than the Mac is due to price pure and simple. And cheaper doesn't mean better. >>
There's no Santa Claus in coins and there is no Santa Claus in computers. You get what you pay for. Look at coin collecting - 90% of collectors collect the most common coins - they just follow the herd. The same is true of computer preference and I hope that it remains that way. There's a reason that all the virus scares are confined to the pc world and as long as we can continue to keep 90% of users convinced that 'Mac's suck' it will remain that way. So the next time that you are in the market for a new computer remember MAC'S SUCK - they're nothing but overpriced toys - real men use pc's!
Apple made three serious strategic errors in their marketing of Macs. First, they "price-gouged" with a mark-up that was ridiculous when they were supposedly competing head-to-head with PCs. Any simple customer or uninformed store clerk could compare the processor power and speed and amount of memory and contrast that with the price -- never mind that the PC needed more to emulate (inefficiently) a Mac. Next, they undermined their sales force. I once knew the guy who came up with the strategy of targeting schools and universities. When he presented his first school-district-wide sale, the brass canceled it and worked a better side deal for the school with the commission going to them -- and nothing to the sales guy who did all the creative deal-working. The biggest error of all, though, was not to broadly and inexpensively license Mac OS s/w to vendors, like MS did; instead, they parsimoniously doled out expensive licenses. In short, they nickel-and-dimed themselves nearly into oblivion.
Askari is right. Apple made some huge blunders with regards to market strategy which is unfortunate for us Mac users. We can only hope they won't make similar mistakes in the future.
<< <i>Dog, there are two kinds of computers: Macs and everyone else. And everyone else is PC. >>
Shamika, that isn't quite true. There are additional architectures out there, such as SGI's workstations and the DEC Alpha's, just to name a couple. Of course, these computers rarely find their way into people's homes, except for the true power users. There are also the supercomputers, servers, etc...out there.
Now, if you wanted to make a generalized statement, then you would have to qualify the "kinds of computers" phrase to be something along the lines of "kinds of commonly used home computers."
Macs are very good at what they do, but they lack the versatility of the PC to be able to do anything you want to do. Of course, this lack of versitility primarily comes from the lack of software available for the platform rather than lack of capability. The graphics gap has closed a lot in recent years to the point that you do not have much of an advantage at all on doing graphics development on a Mac. If you are a serious graphics developer, you are not going to be using desktop computers anyway, you will be using some high powered graphics workstations from SGI most likely.
Basically, the Mac is a technological superior machine that lacks the mainstream software support that the PC has. So, for the very specific areas that there is software support for the Mac, it is the way to go, if that is all you are going to do. That is why publication shops (and you can include the low level graphics shops in this too) primarily use Macs. However, once you branch outside the specialty areas of the Mac, you need a PC.
Personally, I use PC's. I have two desktops and a laptop that I use regularly at home. My old desktop basically runs some server software on my home network, the new desktop is my primary machine that I use, and my laptop I use primarily for military applications as it is useful to have when I have to travel with the Army Reserve. I use a PC at work as well.
Now, for a really interesting time, try teaching someone who has used a Mac exclusively to use a PC program. You get this wonderful blank stare from them when you tell them to right click their mouse. (Yes, I have had this happen. I was a computer software instructor for about a year and a half).
I have also had someone come into one of the non-introductory classes and had never used a mouse in their entire life. They had apparently used an IBM Thinkpad exclusively and only knew how to use the little nub embedded in the keyboard to navigate around the OS.
Are they still building DEC Alpha systems? I thought they were killed off after being absorbed by Compaq, which was in turn absorbed by HP. And, in the context of this discussion, Silicon Graphics really isn't relevant, since we're comparing Macs to PCs. How many people here are using a high end graphics workstation?
Fundamentally, Shamika is right. For practical purposes, there really are only two, one of which barely has 6% of the market.
PC at work. Older PC at home for coin inventory & word processing, etc.
But the family's main computer has been a Mac for years now. Macs are great, and I find most people who are extremely anti-Mac have never really used them for any significant length of time. Give them a try, and you will discover their advantages as well as their liabilities.. then you have a right to offer an informed opinion.
For my next personal computer, I have a feeling I'll go for a Mac. OSX is incredible, and superior in many ways to Windows. It is easily one of the most stable operating systems available.. no "blue screens" when you try to execute a simple command.
But I'm divided. I like both Macs and PC's when it comes down to it. They're both great technology in my book, and it really comes down to personal preference. Don't just outright assume one or the other sucks.. we're talking computers here, not football teams.
The main reason we lost our Macs at work was because the IS managers were folks who had never learned to use them and just accepted the then-popular myth that Macs were "toys." That had to have come from MS's marketeers, because it wasn't true. PC graphics have improved, but mostly because they've become the "only game in town" since Apple went down for the count. With tremendous investment in one and negligible investment in the technologies for the other, it's bound that the PC will steadily improve. Nevertheless, MS OS remains more inefficient and limited in what it can achieve in this regard. MS is far clumsier to write code for, inefficient, and poorly structured; it has relied more on the constant improvement in computer chip processing power and speed to make up for its relative deficiencies.
I had hopes years ago that we would now have a new OS, the one that MS and Apple were at one time planning to develop together that would combine the best features of both. MS canned the initiative, however, and I suspect they were never really serious. Even the big check to bail out Apple was nothing more than an attempt to keep a permanently hobbled competitor alive and avoid an antitrust breakup of Microsoft. I have some small hope that Linux will eventually fill the hole of a needed, capable competitor, but I'm not expecting to see it my lifetime, unfortunately.
PC since the very first ones that didn't have hard drives and you had to keep juggling those big floppies (back when they WERE floppy) like '86? Self-taught. Been using Wordperfect since version 3.something-- 10 now. Can still use DOS and I still have a few of the old computers in the garage. Can you believe that they flew to the moon with less than you have in the average PDA today?
OK ... I maintain the computer system in an advertising agency. We use both Macs and PCs. The creative/design staff use Macs while the rest of the agency use PCs. Everyone works off the same file server (a PC).
In these commercial applications, there is no substitute for MACs - mainly because our vendors - Print houses and such - insist on Mac platform files. While the same programs are available for PCs in most cases the output files are not the same.
PCs in these times are just as capable as a MAC. The new MAC OS10 is very nice (linux based) - but then the new various flavors of Windows have improved a lot in usability and stability. Remember that a 2 year old machine is an antique in the computer industry. 2 year old software is just as bad. If they do the job you need, fine ... but don't base recommendations on ancient history.
Cost wise there is no question that PCs are cheaper - initial cost of the machine and in the cost of software. A PC will cost a bit less than a Mac when it is configured with the same capabilities. Software for PCs is generally cheaper since there is a much larger market. The availability of software is the biggest difference between the platforms.
There is at least 500 times as many software titles out there for PCs as there are for Macs - and lots of them are free! A computer all by itself is useless - it is the software that makes a computer of any use at all. Almost anything that is available for Macs is available for PCs the reverse is not true. But if the software that you want is available for a Mac and you don't mind paying extra for the usability factor, then get yourself the machine that makes you happiest.
There really isn't much difference between the 2. It usually comes down to whose advertising campaigns have been most effective.
"I have also had someone come into one of the non-introductory classes and had never used a mouse in their entire life. They had apparently used an IBM Thinkpad exclusively and only knew how to use the little nub embedded in the keyboard to navigate around the OS."
I'm not saying Macs are invincible when it comes to obvious viruses like this, I just don't have to worry about the vast majority of them. I've had no problem with viruses, spyware, consoles without the aid of anti-badguy software, that may very well be because of our small numbers and if that's the case then perhaps it's good our numbers are small.
In regards to Apple's business decision, yes they made some poor choices in the 90s but now they are a profitable and successful company. Their market share however is still pretty low compared to what it was but now that there have been speed increases, the release of QuarkXPress for OSX and the large amount of press Apple's been getting there could be a boost in the coming year. Whatever the case I'm happy with my machine. Have you tried out OS X, Askari? Ever think about getting a new Mac for home one day?
<< <i>Another reason I like Macs just entered my inbox: >>
It never would have even made it to my in-box. I setup my mail client to leave all attachments on the server until I decide either to download or delete. Viruses are not an issue on a correctly configured PC.
usually my email client filters out the crap as well but this is the new virus that's sweeping across the net, it's the headline at Drudge. I've gotten it twice already.
Comments
<< <i>"The PC kills the Mac...There was a reason Macs don't sell all that well....They suck!"
No. The reason why PCs sell better than the Mac is due to price pure and simple. And cheaper doesn't mean better. >>
There's no Santa Claus in coins and there is no Santa Claus in computers. You get what you pay for. Look at coin collecting - 90% of collectors collect the most common coins - they just follow the herd. The same is true of computer preference and I hope that it remains that way. There's a reason that all the virus scares are confined to the pc world and as long as we can continue to keep 90% of users convinced that 'Mac's suck' it will remain that way. So the next time that you are in the market for a new computer remember MAC'S SUCK - they're nothing but overpriced toys - real men use pc's!
Come on over ... to The Dark Side!
<< <i>Dog, there are two kinds of computers: Macs and everyone else. And everyone else is PC. >>
Shamika, that isn't quite true. There are additional architectures out there, such as SGI's workstations and the DEC Alpha's, just to name a couple. Of course, these computers rarely find their way into people's homes, except for the true power users. There are also the supercomputers, servers, etc...out there.
Now, if you wanted to make a generalized statement, then you would have to qualify the "kinds of computers" phrase to be something along the lines of "kinds of commonly used home computers."
Macs are very good at what they do, but they lack the versatility of the PC to be able to do anything you want to do. Of course, this lack of versitility primarily comes from the lack of software available for the platform rather than lack of capability. The graphics gap has closed a lot in recent years to the point that you do not have much of an advantage at all on doing graphics development on a Mac. If you are a serious graphics developer, you are not going to be using desktop computers anyway, you will be using some high powered graphics workstations from SGI most likely.
Basically, the Mac is a technological superior machine that lacks the mainstream software support that the PC has. So, for the very specific areas that there is software support for the Mac, it is the way to go, if that is all you are going to do. That is why publication shops (and you can include the low level graphics shops in this too) primarily use Macs. However, once you branch outside the specialty areas of the Mac, you need a PC.
Personally, I use PC's. I have two desktops and a laptop that I use regularly at home. My old desktop basically runs some server software on my home network, the new desktop is my primary machine that I use, and my laptop I use primarily for military applications as it is useful to have when I have to travel with the Army Reserve. I use a PC at work as well.
Yes, I'm aware of the other architectures available in the market, but most individuals are clueless.
I was generalizing to make a point. No harm was intended.
No harm, no foul.
Now, for a really interesting time, try teaching someone who has used a Mac exclusively to use a PC program. You get this wonderful blank stare from them when you tell them to right click their mouse. (Yes, I have had this happen. I was a computer software instructor for about a year and a half).
I have also had someone come into one of the non-introductory classes and had never used a mouse in their entire life. They had apparently used an IBM Thinkpad exclusively and only knew how to use the little nub embedded in the keyboard to navigate around the OS.
<< <i>SGI's workstations and the DEC Alpha's >>
Are they still building DEC Alpha systems? I thought they were killed off after being absorbed by Compaq, which was in turn absorbed by HP. And, in the context of this discussion, Silicon Graphics really isn't relevant, since we're comparing Macs to PCs. How many people here are using a high end graphics workstation?
Fundamentally, Shamika is right. For practical purposes, there really are only two, one of which barely has 6% of the market.
Russ, NCNE
But the family's main computer has been a Mac for years now. Macs are great, and I find most people who are extremely anti-Mac have never really used them for any significant length of time. Give them a try, and you will discover their advantages as well as their liabilities.. then you have a right to offer an informed opinion.
For my next personal computer, I have a feeling I'll go for a Mac. OSX is incredible, and superior in many ways to Windows. It is easily one of the most stable operating systems available.. no "blue screens" when you try to execute a simple command.
But I'm divided. I like both Macs and PC's when it comes down to it. They're both great technology in my book, and it really comes down to personal preference. Don't just outright assume one or the other sucks.. we're talking computers here, not football teams.
I had hopes years ago that we would now have a new OS, the one that MS and Apple were at one time planning to develop together that would combine the best features of both. MS canned the initiative, however, and I suspect they were never really serious. Even the big check to bail out Apple was nothing more than an attempt to keep a permanently hobbled competitor alive and avoid an antitrust breakup of Microsoft. I have some small hope that Linux will eventually fill the hole of a needed, capable competitor, but I'm not expecting to see it my lifetime, unfortunately.
Come on over ... to The Dark Side!
The neverending battle ... Macs vs PCs
OK ... I maintain the computer system in an advertising agency. We use both Macs and PCs. The creative/design staff use Macs while the rest of the agency use PCs. Everyone works off the same file server (a PC).
In these commercial applications, there is no substitute for MACs - mainly because our vendors - Print houses and such - insist on Mac platform files. While the same programs are available for PCs in most cases the output files are not the same.
PCs in these times are just as capable as a MAC. The new MAC OS10 is very nice (linux based) - but then the new various flavors of Windows have improved a lot in usability and stability. Remember that a 2 year old machine is an antique in the computer industry. 2 year old software is just as bad. If they do the job you need, fine ... but don't base recommendations on ancient history.
Cost wise there is no question that PCs are cheaper - initial cost of the machine and in the cost of software. A PC will cost a bit less than a Mac when it is configured with the same capabilities. Software for PCs is generally cheaper since there is a much larger market. The availability of software is the biggest difference between the platforms.
There is at least 500 times as many software titles out there for PCs as there are for Macs - and lots of them are free! A computer all by itself is useless - it is the software that makes a computer of any use at all. Almost anything that is available for Macs is available for PCs the reverse is not true. But if the software that you want is available for a Mac and you don't mind paying extra for the usability factor, then get yourself the machine that makes you happiest.
There really isn't much difference between the 2. It usually comes down to whose advertising campaigns have been most effective.
Coin Show Schedules - www.CoinShowDates.com
I always called it a nipple.
I'm not saying Macs are invincible when it comes to obvious viruses like this, I just don't have to worry about the vast majority of them. I've had no problem with viruses, spyware, consoles without the aid of anti-badguy software, that may very well be because of our small numbers and if that's the case then perhaps it's good our numbers are small.
In regards to Apple's business decision, yes they made some poor choices in the 90s but now they are a profitable and successful company. Their market share however is still pretty low compared to what it was but now that there have been speed increases, the release of QuarkXPress for OSX and the large amount of press Apple's been getting there could be a boost in the coming year. Whatever the case I'm happy with my machine. Have you tried out OS X, Askari? Ever think about getting a new Mac for home one day?
<< <i>Another reason I like Macs just entered my inbox: >>
It never would have even made it to my in-box. I setup my mail client to leave all attachments on the server until I decide either to download or delete. Viruses are not an issue on a correctly configured PC.
Russ, NCNE
Come on over ... to The Dark Side!
Gandyjai