Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

PC Users Switch to Apple 173

Posted by pudge from the my-name-is-pudge-and-i-am-a-slashdot-editor dept.
JHromadka writes "Apple has setup a special website with real users explaining why they switched from the PC to the Mac. There's a full compliment of commercials, Mac OS X reviews, the works. Now we know why they didn't renew that agreement with Microsoft. :)" I like the commercials, they're funny, though probably not so much intentionally. Apparently the commercials begin airing this week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PC Users Switch to Apple More

PC Users Switch to Apple

Comments Filter:

  • The Problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jasenko ( 97884 )
    Usually when people say somebody switched they think that person switched from using MS OS', not entirely true, I switched from Linux, so what Apple can offer many alternative OS' users to switch to overpriced patform

    • Re:The Problem (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tm2b ( 42473 )
      While that's true, Apple needs to spend its money effectively - the number of Windows users is so vastly larger than the number of Linux users that Apple can't focus on individual Linux users.

      However, the XServe is the first of a set of products aimed at the IT segment of the industry - you can bet that further down the road you'll see in-depth coverage of why people should move infrastructure from Linux, Solaris, and so on to Mac OS X.
      • Also, most Linux users know what they're doing, and know what they want out of their computers. If Apple gives that to them, they will switch without any TV ads. If Apple does not meet their needs, no ad will persuade them.

        So either way, advertizing to the Linux crowd is kind of pointless.

        In addition to that, a Linux person is running a free operating system, probably on an old, cheap, home-built computer, so it's not even enough to provide a better OS experience. To sell even one Mac to a Linux guy, you need to provide something that is enough better (in their opinion) to justify a lot of added cost. The fact that even a few Linux people are either switching to Mac, or are using Macs along with their Linux Boxen, says a lot about what Apple must be doing right.

    • An OS for which there are many thousands of commercial applications available. A complete UI. A pre-installed, integreated-with-the-hardware OS, all designed to work together and all under the same waranty. Spit and polish. Taste. That kind of thing.

      Linux in it's present state of development and present degree of desktop penetration is a totally different beast aimed at a radically different market.

      And please don't fool yourself into thinking that Apple is "out to steal" Linux desktop marketshare. There's not enough there to bother with. Now Xserve [apple.com] muscle in on Linux server spaces? Sure I think they would like that. But that's another discussion.
      • I can give you my reason for recently switching back to macs.
        My Thinkpad 600 has been nothing but one hardware nightmare after another. While it may not be a widespread problem between the contast repairs and windows dying on me twice a day I gladly plunked down the extra cash to get myself a G4 tower.

  • full story at... (Score:2, Informative)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 )
    CNet [com.com]. The ads appear to be called "RealPeople" ads. Probably because their now using a RealOS :-)
  • I'm wondering if the same sort of thing might work for Linux? If anything, Linux advocates tend to be even more zealous than Mac-heads, but much more knowledgeable. I imagine we could put together something pretty persuasive, maybe even incorporating a little of the toned-down Free Software propoganda? Anyone?
    • it might work for Linux, but who's gonna pay the advertising bill? open source developers gonna club together the pocket money that their parents give them? Or maybe they'll wash Dad's car or even mow next door's lawn... :-]
  • Sure I added OS X to the OSes I use but I still use several systems and several OSes on those systems. Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Irix and the various Windows are all great in different ways and I'd hate to better locked in to one OS or even one OS per architecture.

    • Re:What do you mean switched? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:21AM (#3677432)
      These ads are clearly targeted at people who are not computer geeks who love messing around with every flavor on *nix out there. They were made to reach ordinary people who need to have one(1) computer for day-to-day use.

      Whenever I have a relative or non-geek friend who wants to have a computer, for pretty much any reason other than gaming, I always encourage them to buy Macs, for the very selfish reason that I don't want to spend my free time as their personal tech support hot-line. The few times in the past that I had helped a people buy a Windows PC's, they ended up needing constant assistance and complaining of baffling glitches. With those who bought Macs, all I did was spend a couple hours showing them the basics, and told them to "guess" whenever they are unsure of how to do something. In spite of being total newbies, and not very tech-inclined, they get by fine without my help after that, and often derrive enough pleasure from working with their Macs to want to learn more, and become experts.

      As for myself, I'm with you. I like having lots of systems running lots of OS's. These ads are not targetting me, either.

    • I think it should be obvious that you are not the target audience for this promo. Most people only use one OS, and want to keep it that way.
      After all, why would you want mulitple OS's if the OS your using does everything you need? It seems to me the only reson people use multiple OS's--even you--is because their isn't one OS that suits all your needs.

  • Question #4... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Enrico Pulatzo ( 536675 ) on Monday June 10, 2002 @10:11AM (#3672555)
    Does my software work on the Mac?
    Speaking as a mac-convert within the past year, this point holds a lot of people back. Not will software run on the Mac, but will software I have previously purchased work on the Mac? If Apple had some service where they and the vendors had a PC for Mac trade-in program (and some do, like Adobe), it would get more people over the hump to switch.

    • I think between Appleworks and Apple's bundled iApps, they've got most mainstream applications covered already.

  • Apple has compelling products (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shunnicutt ( 561059 ) on Monday June 10, 2002 @10:35AM (#3672685)
    My office is in the middle of consolidating from one floor of our office building to one, necessitating a great deal of shifting about for almost everyone.

    One of my co-workers was annoyed that she'd be without music while she was re-assembling her office, so I loaned her my iPod for a couple of hours with a pair of speakers that was lying around.

    I was simply amazed at how ecstatic she was over this little device. She had no trouble figuring out how to use it.

    She was so smitten that she is now planning to purchase an iBook, Microsoft Office, more RAM, 3 years worth of AppleCare (due to one of Apple's promotions, buying the AppleCare and MS Office at the Apple Store with the iBook is actually $11 less than without AppleCare) and, of course, the iPod.

    She wouldn't hear of waiting for someone to finish a program to interface the iPod with a PC. She was already contemplating a new laptop, and she's very excited with the features of the iBook.

    I was never sure that I truly believed the stories of people buying Macs just to use an iPod, but that's exactly what she's planning!

  • I'm switching this week (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swagr ( 244747 ) on Monday June 10, 2002 @11:11AM (#3672850) Homepage
    Quite honestly, I love Linux. I use it as a destop and a server on several PCs.
    Laptops are another story...
    I've owned 3 PC laptops in the last 5 years, and never had Linux working 100% on any of them.

    Power management has never worked 100% properly for me. Even though I can get hardware video acceleration, switching to a tty, then back, breaks XFree and freezes my machine. etc... Basically the Open Source community can't keep up with the proprietary innovations going into new laptops.

    Enter OSX. Now I know I can get a cutting edge Laptop, who's hardware is 100% supported by a UNIX based OS, at a reasonable price. I don't remember an opportuinity like this existing before.

    I'm trading my (almost) new PC laptop for an (almost) new iBook this week.
    • Be sure to upgrade to 10.1.5 ASAP as it yields big speed increases, at least in my testings (PBG4, PMG4, G3 iMac, and a shop G3 iBook)
    • The G4 PowerBooks are nice. However, getting a laptop that runs Linux well isn't all that hard. Just like you buy a laptop from a particular company (Apple) to get OSX running well, you can buy laptops actually from several companies that run Linux well.

      Or, you can just check Linux on Laptops [linux-laptop.net] before buying.

      All my laptops over the last few years have run Linux very well (mostly IBM and HP). I'm also pretty happy with my OSX PowerBook, although there is a lot more software available for Linux (at least of the kind I'm interested in).

  • This is what you need to make your machines and new OS a killer. A native OS X X server. (heh, can you call parse that sentence?). Having to start XDarwin (I use the front end OroborOSX) to run my X apps is a pain, and destroys the desktop continuity. Create those crazy bindings so I can compile my X (not X) apps natively, and you will have a beautiful unix based machine with thousands of applications at your fingertips, retaining the good ol look and feel of your OS.
    • Laplace, I know it sounds like heresy, but perhaps you should just fork out some cash and buy Tenons Xtools X Server for X. It integrates very well with the OS, windows dock, and yes you can even double-click X applications. Very seamless.
      • perhaps you should just fork out some cash and buy Tenons Xtools X server for X

        No, he shouldn't.

        Tenon has all but abandoned [tenon.com] Xtools. There hasn't been an update since last September, and the currently available version (1.0.4p1) is horribly unstable.

        Xtools was useful for the 6-month window between the initial XF86 port to Darwin and the release of XFree 4.2 (which integrated the rootless quartz server into the main code tree). Since then, however, it's rotted. At this point, OroborosX [ic.ac.uk] is faster, better-featured, and much more stable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • We already get a bunch of shallow Carbon and QuickDraw ports. And we will be getting a bunch of shallow Win32 ports (via compatibility libraries), shallow Qt ports, shallow Gtk+, shallow wx ports, shallow Xlib, shallow Motif, and shallow FLTK ports. In different words, all the existing UNIX applications will be ported by putting a minimal Quartz backend onto their toolkits. UNIX and Linux developers have neither time nor interest investing a lot of effort in Cocoa/Quarts development (which isn't such a hot toolkit anyway).

        Apple loses nothing by making X11 a standard component of every shipping Mac. Quite to the contrary, they make their machines easier to use by their fastest growing user segment: UNIX/Linux users and scientists/engineers. And even the rather primitive X11 implementation we are getting right now is faster than Quartz. Imagine how much more performance the Mac could gain if X11 were tightly integrated into the system.

        If, on the other hand, Apple thinks they can grow a new community of developers devoted to their proprietary APIs, they are sadly mistaken. They are only losing sales that way.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • From where I sit (in Apple Worldwide Developer Relations), that's not what I'm seeing.

            You are getting a biased sample because you talk to the traditional Mac developers and maybe some OpenStep developers. People who don't use Carbon or Cocoa for applications development have no need to talk to you.

            I don't think you realize how much of a drag X windows has been on UNIX, despite the heroic efforts of SGI and others to make it usable.

            That statement makes no sense. X11 is the equivalent of Quartz. You could put the current Mac UI on top of X11 and the only user-visible difference would be that it would run a whole lot faster than Cocoa on Quartz and that it would be network transparent. Furthermore, X11 won the UNIX market because of end user preferences; if it had been up to the workstation vendors, we'd be using DisplayPostscript, OpenLook, or something similar.

            Nothing but the quality of the UI, which after all is a principal competitive advantage of the platform..

            The quality of the UI doesn't depend on Quartz, Carbon, or Cocoa. The quality of the UI depends on user interface guidelines that people follow no matter what graphics API or toolkit they use.

            There won't be a mass conversion to Cocoa. It's just not going to happen. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Cocoa is a good API, people just don't have the time or interest to develop to such a niche platform if they can just as easily use a toolkit that will work on all the major platforms. A large fraction of OSX applications, commercial, open source, and in-house, will be developed using cross-platform toolkits or X11, whether Apple likes it or not. The only choice Apple has in the matter is to help those toolkits and X11 to look their very best on the OSX desktop.

            X11 and UNIX toolkits are crucial to the future of OSX. The more and the better you support them, the better the end user experience will be. If, on the other hand, you try to force people onto Cocoa, you'll just lose again many of the recent converts to OSX. As an OSX developer, I can only hope Apple won't make that mistake.

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • Your clairvoyance needs a bit of work. Let me just say that you have no idea who I'm talking to.

                Neither you nor I know for certain whether the sample of developers you talk to is biased or not. But I do know that there is a large number of people developing software for OSX that never talk to you. I also know that most of the software I and my coworkers use on OSX was developed by such people.

                "X11 is the equivalent of Quartz." Not hardly!

                You are missing the point. I simply pointed out that X11 and Quartz are graphics libraries. The presence or absence of X11 on a platform has nothing to do with how user friendly it is because X11 is not a user interface, it's little more than a graphics library.

                So, yes, it looks like we can use X for Quartz. All we need do is [...]

                I think you are completely wrong in your assessment (most of the features you mention are already in X servers), but that's water under the bridge. For better or for worse, Apple invested lots of effort in building stuff on top of Quartz.

                My point is that what you should do now is integrate X11 as another graphics API into the system, alongside Quartz. People will develop applications for OSX using X11 toolkits whether you want it or not. But by taking control and making this work well, you can improve the user experience.

                Come back next year, and tell me if you still think so. In the meantime, have a look at the Mac OS X projects at sourceforge, and check out how many of them use Cocoa.

                We don't have to guess about what Cocoa is like, we already know it. I don't think it has much of a future against systems based on Java or C# and their APIs and toolsets.

                In any case, there are about 10 projects using Cocoa as far as I can tell, all of the minor ones (Google [google.com]). Most OSX related open source projects seem to be about adapting cross-platform libraries to work on OSX.

                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • I hope that you aren't actually working for ADC (you don't show up anywhere on the Apple web site). If your opinions reflect Apple's strategy--trying to move people from open toolkits to Apple proprietary toolkits--it's doomed to failure. Apple got a lot of OSX users in academia and research recently because OSX is BSD compatible. But Apple can't take these people for granted; they will switch away from Apple before they start developing using proprietary Apple/NeXT APIs.

                    As for your other opinions, the resume on your web site lists no experience with X11. And you are just giving us the typical uninformed hot air of NeXT zealots about the supposed evils of X11, mistakenly implying even that X11 is a user interface.

                    Like any large, mature software system, X11 has its flaws, but X11 has a lot of strengths, too. X11 is a perfectly good substrate on which to build high quality user interfaces and it is the standard on which UNIX toolkits and applications are built. If Apple wants long-term buy-in from UNIX users and the open source community, they should make X11 a standard, transparently available component of OSX, alongside Carbon and Cocoa.

    • Apple should integrate X11 tightly into the OS, putting it on equal footing with Quartz and QuickDraw/Carbon. Apple should also sponsor an OSX look-and-feel for Gtk+ and ship Gtk+.

      If Apple doesn't do this, they people won't magically become devoted Apple Cocoa developers. Rather, Apple will only create unnecessary porting headaches for their newest developers--UNIX developers. Those developers won't switch to Cocoa, they will simply continue using the same toolkits they have always been using (Gtk+, wxWindows, etc.), but with substandard and poorly maintained OSX-backends. That only hurts Apple.

      I know it's tough medicine to swallow for Apple. But I really don't see any alternative. Hoping that the world will switch to Cocoa is a pipe dream--whether it is technically good or not, Cocoa is a niche product. Only a small, dedicated core of Mac developers will spend time on it.

  • TV ads aim for the edges (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomdarch ( 225937 ) on Monday June 10, 2002 @02:17PM (#3673913)
    The TV ads on the site are aimed at the edges of the WinTel user base, not at it's core. While I'm not happy about that at a 'gut' level, I think it does make sense. At first I wanted to see a suburban/small town shmoe dressed in Wallmart fashion with a stock car racing cap because that's the core of mass market home purchasing. Instead it's a bunch of people (like me) who wear black (other than to funerals) and roughly half of them are writers. But it dawned on me that they are at the edge between the Mac/Windows world, and just ended up on the wrong side for whatever reason. The are the next 5% who can most easily be brought over. It does require a bit of technical sophistication to switch over (e.g. you might need to know what an ethernet crossover cable is to move your old files over if you don't have access to a network). Thus, there's a big hump to get over for a big part of the market. Once wireless networking is stock, this might become easier. Imagine that part of the out-of-the-box wizard asks you if you want to move files over from the PC that it found (wirelessly) in the same room. They're going after SOHO users because there's a lot less 'inertia' to deal with - "You need a new computer every 2 to 5 years, make it a Mac this time. It's easy. Give it a try." They don't mention it in the ads, but MSOffice is a big part of why this will work for a lot people. "You word process, you prepare presentations, you e-mail and web surf. A Mac works better for these things." For Wall Street a few percent shift would be a big thing and would strengthen the perception of Apple, so it seems like the place to start is with the fence sitters.
    • Apple has a unique opportunity with these people. If they can make the switch successfully, then they can tell Apple what it needs to do to make it easier for the NASCAR-lovin', Walmart-patronizin' Joe Shmoes out there. Then, you'll see even more ease of conversion.

      My biggest gripe right now, for those people trying to convert from PCs, deals with getting files from Windows computers. Connecting to Windows fileservers is completely unintuitive. Apple really needs to fix this, and quick. Connecting to Windows shares should be as easy as connecting to Appleshare shares. I hope 10.2 is out in July or August, and not September, and that it addresses this.
    • you might need to know what an ethernet crossover cable is to move your old files over if you don't have access to a network

      That's one thing I like about Apple. My iBook's ethernet port is auto-sensing. I can plug it into a hub, then use the same cable to plug it into another computer. It switches modes automatically, eliminating the need for a crossover cable.

  • Does the Mac "Just Work Better?" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shunnicutt ( 561059 ) on Monday June 10, 2002 @02:55PM (#3674153)
    Well, for me, the answer is "yes," although I only have anecdotes to support my opinion.

    Just today, a co-worker called me to her office. She couldn't change her default printer in Windows. Rather, she repeatedly changed the default, but the program she wanted to print from didn't recognize the change.

    I'm a Mac guy -- I figured something was wrong, so I walked her through the procedure one more time. It still didn't work. Maybe we have to restart the program? Nope, still defaulted to the wrong printer.

    We eventually had to change the printer in "Print Setup" before the program would "default" to the printer she wanted.

    On a Mac, you'd change your default printer and all of the program would automatically print using that printer. No restarting programs, no restarting the computer, no trying to figure out some obtuse reasoning to accomplish a very, very simple task.

    Does the Mac work better? I think so.
    • Mac OSX printing currently can be a headache, too. Many USB printer drivers can't print to remote printers. Some supported local USB printers stop working haphazardly and require power cycling the printer and restarting the print queue in some obscure little application in the Utilities folder.

      Still, on the whole, OSX does work a lot better than Windows in my experience. Let's hope Apple will fix this pox [cnet.com], too. I believe Apple has licensed CUPS and is working on replacing the current printing system.

  • I'll soon be upgrading my brain to 10.1.5 (Score:4, Funny)

    by furballphat ( 514726 ) on Monday June 10, 2002 @03:45PM (#3674544)

    "the way it works is like the way your brain is supposed to work"

    So that's why I keep seeing gray stripes everywhere.

  • I just saw the first ad (Mark Frauenfelder) on MSNBC. The irony of Apple ads targeted to MS users on MSNBC is just soooo good. I bet Bill is pissed.
    • Along those lines, I found a great quote on MacObserver (which in turn was quoting NY Times)

      Steve Jobs Quoth:
      "Our relationship with Microsoft is really pretty good," Mr. Jobs said. "What's a few market-share points between friends? It wouldn't matter to them, and we would be eternally grateful."

      It thought it was hillarious.

  • With M$ holding so much of the market right now, any competition they can get is good for their image, and for their antitrust lawsuit defense. For that reason, I doubt anybody at M$ really sees Apple as a big threat, or is worried by these commercials.

    Now, if Apple somehow managed to get up to 20% marketshare, then there might be a problem.

    Myself, I switched back in March of 2000, and I haven't looked back since.

    These ads are great. If it gets a few extra percent of the market, then they did their job.

    My favorite part of the ads? The fact that they're trying to win over PC users without using direct insults.
    • My favorite part of the ads? The fact that they're trying to win over PC users without using direct insults.

      Um... "It was a horrid little machine" is pretty direct. ;-)
      • What I meant by my statement there was that Apple's not insulting the intelligence of PC users with this campaign, by saying "Get a Mac, you ignorant PeeCee user." Look at older Apple campaigns. You'll see what I'm talking about.

        Off the top of my head I can remember an older (early 90s) campaign that pitted Apple employees against the evil IBM (I believe this was a training video). Or, a 1995 spot that showed a Windows guy on a stage giving a presentation. When his Windows PC crashed, people were giving suggestions (Edit system.ini, edit autoexec.bat), and then finally a guy in the back just yelled, "Get a Mac!" Sure, that was funny, but it just made the Mac guy look like a zealot.

        Zealots don't serve the Apple cause very well. It puts off Window users. I've successfully recommended Macs to coworkers twice, after they saw how easy it was for me to use one, and after the demos I gave them. When you show a user what the computer can do, rather than berating them for choosing something you think is inferior, you stand a far better chance of getting him or her to see things your way.

        I like these Apple ads. It's a good step towards showing people that the switch to the Mac is going to be as easy as computer itself.
  • They're here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org]. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close