Wall Street Journal: Mac vs. PC 142
cpk0 writes "Walt Mossberg is taking a few days to discuss the differences between Mac and PCs, and which is suitable for whom. He begins by saying the tides have definitely turned in regards to Apple's state as a computer which he will recommend. This is the first in a miniature series of articles by Mossberg touching base on the Apple vs. PC situation (but don't worry, it's not at all about bashing one side)."
Standards (Score:4, Funny)
It's easier today than ever to use a Mac in a Windows world and to share information. This is true partly because the Internet and e-mail don't distinguish between computing platforms.
Oh boy, does Microsoft hate statements like this
Re:Standards (Score:4, Funny)
Except with respect to VB scripting worms.
Re:Standards (Score:1)
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Utter crap (Score:1)
Besides, email attachments are not a practical way to share any but the most trivial documents. Not to mention the virus risks!
Why on earth does Slashdot keep trumpeting Mossberg's pronouncements as if they meant jack? His sole qualification to have any sort of technical opinion is (according to him) technical illiteracy [slashdot.org]!
Re:Utter crap (Score:2, Informative)
Er, excuse me, but Stuffit Expander [stuffit.com] is available for Mac, PC and Linux for free, and it's all you need to unstuff _any_ .sit file.
dalamcd
P.S. No, stuffit.com is not a porn site...
Re:Utter crap (Score:1)
Re:Standards (Score:1)
Re:Standards (Score:1)
a vote for Mac (Score:1)
The new Macintosh Operating System, affectionately referred to as "X," also does a superior job of coupling media programs with the OS itself. I believe this is an effect of the Open Source nature of the OS, as software developers appear to be crafting their wares with greater insight into what happens "beneath the hood."
Sadly, Windows' paltry competition in this area has encouraged stagnation in the Macintosh audio market. Hopefully, Linux will cause things to pick up a bit, or music fans may be forced to listen to the same crap that has been flooding the airwaves for the last decade or so.
Cheers.
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:1)
First, I must say that I am avid Mac fan and a musician who has been using Cubase for about 4 years now. I did want to point out, (is this REALLY Elton John?), that Cubase is indeed available for the PC platform. In fact, Cubase SX hit has already hit the market for the PC whilst we are still waiting on the 'X' side. Such is life...
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:2)
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:1)
It's like running CDE on Linux. Free OS, non-free application.
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:2)
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:3, Informative)
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:2)
First, we know that the term Free Software has existed for a long time before the term "Open Source" even existed. In fact, the "Open Source" movement was actually a rebranding of what was known then as Free Software. Stallman and the FSF disagreed that a new term was necessary and thats where the split began.
The Open Source definition, which I'm sure you would link me to otherwise, derived pretty much exactly from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And the DFSG was based upon the social contract based on the Free Software Principles.
So when you say that a certain software package is Free Software but not Open Source, or vice-versa -- you're making a distinction that doesn't really exist since one is just another name for the other. Because both wordings are really just a name for a set of principles. If the definition doesn't meet the principle, then the definition changes or is reinterpreted--not the principle. Its a lot like the US Constitution in this regard. What matters is the spirit of Free Software and Open Source, not the definitions themselves.
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:2)
Free Software and Open Source may be two recent terms which were capitalized, but before Stallman and Raymond were running around shouting about their version of various software idealisms there was software with source code available, and this software... was called... OPEN SOURCE.
Get it?
The source is open. you can see it...
some software was also called free software... you see... it was free... yes, it meant that it cost nothing.
The relatively recent redefinitions of Free Software and Open Source are by their respective camps are simply an act of revisionist history making.
Oooh, big fancy sounding words
Re:a vote for Mac (Score:2)
Please, give me examples of people using "open source" before raymond began using it.
Macs as a.... Fileserver? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have serveral clients with too much money on their hands that have wanted a fileserver for home - Usually I take an older ATX box of theirs, put it in a decent case with a good and quite powersupply (Antec/PC Power And Cooling) and replace the processor fan. Plop in FreeBSD, Samba and hide it in the closet.
Last week, we used an IMac for filserving and as a novelty - the machine sits in the den, where the kids can play DVDs and listen to MP3, and the Samba filserver keeps on ticking. It's the first time that I've felt confortable having little kids play games with on a computer that, at the same time, is serving files. So far, there have been no lockups or crashes.
There are several benefits that I like with this situation - the customer gets a fun toy to play with, the "fileserver" is quiet and can nativly RSync it's precious files back to my servers for an offsite backup, and best of all - I get a reliable computer thats good for my reputation.
Really, the fullfilment of dream for an easy to use Unix has snuck up on us in the form of a Luxo Jr. lamp.
Re:Macs as a.... Fileserver? (Score:1)
Using an iMac as a file server?
How many files do you HAVE? 3, 4?
Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:1)
How easy is it to remap keys in Mac OS X? I know OpenStep 4.2 had a simple keyboard configurator app that allowed me to switch between various keymaps, but in my quick in-store demo of an iBook, it didn't seem that the keyboard control panel had the same functionality. I'm not looking for any huge modifications, but I will not buy a laptop if I cannot have the caps lock button act as control...
The other issues I have I'll have to take up with Apple personally (I don't want to buy an iBook if a new OS is going to come out in a couple months unless I'll get a free upgrade, and I don't want to pay $249 simply for a 3 year hardware warranty).
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:1)
The other alternative is to look at it this way... The upgrade fee won't likely be in excess of $30(I paid $19.95 for the 10.1 upgrade CD which included the Dev Tools and 9.2.2 also, when I originally only ha the 10.0.3 CD). What would you pay for a point upgrade on the Windows side? Well, let's see, Win2k was essentially NT 5.0, and WinXP is basically NT 5.1, so you'd have paid $99 for that single point.
In comparison Apple's offering you a deal. Or you could just borrow the upgrade CD from someone who's already shelled out the cash for it, if you don't mind such unethical practices.
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:2)
Just for the record, I picked up a free 10.1 upgrade CD at the Apple Store in my home town, then downloaded the developer's tools from the Apple web site. Zero cost to go from 10.0.4 to 10.1.
Apple may or may not do something similar with Jaguar, but it's safe to say that they've set a precedent.
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure about full keyboard re-mapping, but for your caps lock woes, there's uControl [versiontracker.com].
Hope that helps!
mark
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:2)
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:2)
I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to evade or rework your question, but if this concern is in regards to using the control key vs. the Apple/command key, I would really encourage you to give the Apple approach a shot. I have worked on both Windows and Macs and find the Mac convention of using the Apple (or command) key to be preferable and I've known Windows users who have grown to prefer it as well for the simple reason that it's less physical space to stretch your fingers and that the Apple key is closer to the natural resting place of your hands on the keyboard. Even if you don't find those to be a compelling enough reasons, it's very easy to become adept at both (I switch between the conventions of both platforms easily at this point.)
Having said that, I'm sure there are utilities or hacks out there to do it. Either way, I wouldn't let such a trivial matter stand in the way.
--Rick
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:3, Informative)
It's also worth noting that if you don't get the 3 year warranty, any time within the first year you can choose to pay the $249 to extend the warranty the additional two years.
Re:Few remaining issues before I switch... (Score:1)
Keymapping and OS upgrades. (Score:1)
Keymapper App (Score:2, Informative)
In OSX, you could manually re-map the modmap file for the appropriate keymap you want to change out of the list of keymaps in the
But of course, there's will soon be an easier way if you don't want to muck about. Michael Baltak's GPL'd DoubleCommand Deluxe [mac.com], under development and hopefully to be released soon should offer a good amount of flexibility in custom keymapping for free. Or, to kill the bug with a sledgehammer you could get a macro utility like Quickeys [apple.com] from CE Software and map the Caps Lock key to trigger a one-key "shortcut" of your choosing (ie: map it to another key)
I wouldn't worry too much about paying to upgrade the OS to Jaguar, Apple so far has been fairly good about this sort of stuff. You could also wait a few months until Jaguar comes out and you might not need a keymapping utility at all, if you can bear to wait.
Hardware compliant, software future (Score:5, Interesting)
I just love plugging in a piece of hardware and having it work the first time. Bring home some new hardware, connect it all up, pop in software, and everything works the first time. I have equal horror stories from the PC support that I did for many years of having to wrestle with hardware and drivers that just didn't work or weren't compatible with other pieces of hardware. Oh, The Pain, The Pain!!
Apple has embraced unix which, last time I checked, leaves M$ Windows as the only non-unix home computer OS. To me, that makes me even more skittish of learning anything Windows related. I can't help but think that it would be a skill that won't transfer nicely to other computer platforms. In fact, I'm even starting for forget some PC-specific skills.
The old M$/Mac war has never been an issue for me. I won't argue with people for more than 5 minutes. I just grin and say "I'm an IT person. I have several computers at home and at work. I prefer Mac over Windows." They're usual the ones who press the issue. At which point I just smile and ask them why they're being so defensive?
Re:Hardware compliant, software future (Score:2)
Although I've recently switched from using primarily Linux to using OS X on a TiBook, your argument holds very little weight. I use Win2k at work and it's solid. Furthermore, MS hired the Mach MicroKernel developers to create WinNT way back in the day. These guys are excellent and experienced OS developers and they still work at Microsoft.
Although, WindowsXP/2K may be the only non-*nix desktop OS, one can assume that it has a *nix basis, since the core team of developers do. One can especially assume that smart design decisions were for the NT kernel with regard to POSIX thread handling and what not.
Re:Hardware compliant, software future (Score:5, Informative)
MS hired the Mach MicroKernel developers to create WinNT way back in the day. These guys are excellent and experienced OS developers and they still work at Microsoft.
This is not true. Yes, Mach's Rick Rashid works at Microsoft [microsoft.com]. However, he did NOT write anything for NT; he is the head of Microsoft Research. Microsoft hired Dave Cutler [microsoft.com] to write NT. Cutler worked at DEC and wrote DEC's VAX/VMS, RSX-11M and VAXELN operating systems. NT more resembles Cutler's canceled "Mira" operating system project at DEC than it does Mach. In fact, Cutler left DEC because his Mira project was canceled. He took his ideas and team of engineers to Microsoft.
WindowsXP/2K may be the only non-*nix desktop OS, one can assume that it has a *nix basis, since the core team of developers do
This is also not true. Dave Cutler hated Unix.
Re:Hardware compliant, software future (Score:2)
Re:Hardware compliant, software future (Score:1)
Re:Hardware compliant, software future (Score:1)
Others have already addressed the MS side of the story - I just wanted to add that Avie Tevanian, one of the principle developers for Mach, was hired by NeXT when they were first formed, and continues to work at Apple. IIRC, he's a VP now.
Mach Engineers (Score:2)
"Furthermore, MS hired the Mach MicroKernel developers to create WinNT way back in the day. These guys are excellent and experienced OS developers and they still work at Microsoft."
To which, I say Ha!
Sorry, I've worked for MS and in fact, worked on Cairo (Back when Cairo was going to be a next gen OS to replace NT, it has since been used to describe all kinds of things that weren't really Cairo, after Cairo was cancelled.)
Let me just say, without violating NDAs, that NT will never effectively compete with OS X for certain, and will probably have a tough time going against Linux.
I've had my hands on the code in question. It doesn't matter how many bright people MS hires (nevermind the fact that there will always be more brighter people who don't work for them, who are more likely to work on Linux) but the process and priorities MS uses in developing its code.
Quality isn't even in the top 5 priorities. They say otherwise, but everyone who works there knows its just talk, and how the process is broken.
Re:Hardware compliant, software future (Score:2)
What's even funnier is that As I Remember It, Avi Tevanian (sp?) was the primary Mach microkernel developer, and he works for Apple... and in fact, is their chief software guru...
Funny...
As far as I see it, you got it quite wrong
The author missed an opportunity... (Score:4, Interesting)
While the WSJ author made a point of criticizing Mac interaction with corporate VPNs, he failed to mention that Macs are quite often easier to integrate into Windows networks than PCs running Windows are.
If for network interface card configuration issues alone, the Mac shines in this area, and it deserves praise for this.
Re:The author missed an opportunity... (Score:2)
But my biggest gripe about Mac's SMB integration is that if you copy a file from a Mac to an SMB share, for each file it copys you get a "bonus" file with the same name preceded by a ".". So copying 10 mp3s from my iBook to an SMB share deposits 10 extra turdlets on my Win2k server.
Re:The author missed an opportunity... (Score:1)
Bring the Mac in, plug it in, enter the supplied IP/DHCP information, go. There's no step four.
Bring the Dell/Gateway/HP/Compaq in, plug it in, enter the supplied information, then spend the next hour dealing with tech support, and finally get connected, but with an unreliable connection.
Re:The author missed an opportunity... (Score:1)
Mossberg (Score:3, Insightful)
to Mac/'doze comparisons. If it works, he'll say so,
if it doesn't he's not gonna sugarcoat it. Back before
the return of Jobs, he faily accurately sized up the
trouble with Apple and called them on it. He's shown
the same attitude toward Microsoft.
No ass kissing, just what he thinks works. A refreshing
change from yesterday's Dvorak drivel.
Re:Mossberg--Amen. (Score:2)
Mossberg is what Jerry Pournelle SHOULD have been....
And, I agree, he seems to be the only person in the industry who can compare Macs and PCs dispassionately and accurately.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing could be said of any non-PC computer vendor. And yet, lots and lots of businesses use Suns and IBMs, to name two. Who makes an AS/400 besides IBM? As far as I know, no one. Does this stop businesses from buying and using them? Of course not.
Businesses have no problem whatsoever signing up for proprietary systems or solutions, as long as those solutions make good financial sense. If it's cheaper to run Macs on the desktop, they'll run Macs. Hardware "monopoly" be damned.
As an aside, I'm getting pretty tired of the widespread misuse of the word "monopoly" by the Slashdot community. It's not really a monopoly, in the strictest sense of the word, when only Apple can make Apple computers. Only Volkswagen can make the Beetle; that's not really a monopoly. You guys may wish that every product or service could be decentralized, but that's just now how the world works.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:1)
Maybe not in the strictest sense, but it's pretty darn close. If your anology was completely apt, we would be living in a world where switching from a VW Beetle to a Ford Focus would require a new garage, different gasoline, and a new kind of steering wheel. But we don't. If you get a different car, everything else works pretty much the same. But if I switch between a Windows PC and a Macintosh, I have to also spend about as much on new software.
....So you have to make sure you switch computers when it's time to upgrade software....
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:2)
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:1)
If you want a computer, you can choose between several hardware platforms (Wintel, Macintosh, Sparcs...). But if you decide that you want a Macintosh then you are stuck with Apple as your provider. Does that make them a monopoly? They are the sole provider of a good or service, so in that respect they are. But how does that relate to your example?
If you want to watch TV you have several choices (Cable, Satilite, Radio Waves...[?]). But if you decide that you want Cable then you're stuck with AT&T (or whomever you're stuck with). Does that make them a monopoly? I think we both agree that it does --sort of.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:2)
The thing is, you're drawing a distinction between "computer" and "Macintosh." While that distinction makes a lot of sense at the technical level, it's meaningless in economic terms. A Mac and a PC are different, but they can be considered to be equivalent from a certain point of view. At that level, a Mac is just a particular variety of personal computer, of which there are several varieties from several different vendors. So the term "monopoly" doesn't apply there.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:1)
No, it does make a difference in economic terms. If you want to buy a Macintosh, you have to buy it from apple. There is no competition for a Macintosh. If you do not draw a distinction between PCs and Macs then there is no economic difference.
I get the feeling we're not getting through to each other.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:1)
Monopoly implies an attempt to control the market, to manipulate the common market to do something only in the interest of the monopolist.
So company Y might make a great system with unique features. But that doesn't stop you from buying any computer and doing any math routine you want. So Company Y doesn't have a monopoly on computers. Those unique features of company Y's products are merely the differentiation that makes them appealing. That's a perfectly acceptable economic idea.
Its why all food of a certain type doesn't cost the same. If company Z grows tomatoes with a special fertilizer, packages them in a lined can and calls them "Tasty" tomatoes, they can charge more than raw tomatoes, but it doesn't stop you from growing and selling tomatoes. If company Z threatens and attacks others who start growing tomatoes and compels them to stop, to keep their pricing power up. Then a monopoly exists.
Monopoly is an Economic term, misusing or over using it distorts your message.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:1)
Everyone's position is supported by the market. That's how they got in that position.
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:2)
Lots of people make personal computers. They're all different in various ways, but they're all personal computers. They can all be used for the same functions, albeit people inevitably prefer one type of computer over another.
There is no monopoly in personal computers. Period.
Saying there's a monopoly on Macintoshes is just incorrect. If you think that's a correct statement, I'd suggest you clarify your understanding of what "monopoly" means.
I trust that we're getting through to each other now.
Re:The platform is PC, not Wintel (Score:1)
Re:The platform is PC, not Wintel (Score:1)
Hmmm .... (Score:2)
If your anology was completely apt, we would be living in a world where switching from a VW Beetle to a Ford Focus would require a new garage, different gasoline, and a new kind of steering wheel
New Garage? I have my G3 and PC sitting on the same desk ...
Different Gas? I plug my G3 and my PC into the same power strip ...
New Steering Wheel? Well, the PC does have a two button mouse ...
If you get a different car, everything else works pretty much the same.
Until you need replacement parts ...
Steve M
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:2)
No, your whole argument is flawed, not just the analogy you're using. There are some things about every product area where different products are incompatible. Fords and VWs use different tyres, parts etc, coke comes in a different bottle to Mountain Dew - it's called product differentiation. Where I work we develop an HTML editing component, we aren't a monopoly but we are not compatible with our competitors API. You either invest in one or the other, and go with it.
The same thing applies with Mac vs PC, they are both in the same product category and compete with each other, but they are incompatible. You pick one and go with it - if you decide to change you have to deal with the incompatibilities.
If Apple were a monopoly then you would never hear about them competing with anyone, because in a monopoly you don't have (noteworthy) competition. In this case though, Apple competes with Dell in the education arena, Microsoft in the OS arena and the combination of Microsoft and $PC_MAKER in the computer arena. Heck, they just launched a series of ads which highlight why Mac is better than Microsoft. If Apple has a monopoly, why are they so keen on competing with Microsoft?
Finally, note that Microsoft has a monopoly because of their size and market dominance, so while there is some competition from Apple and Linux it is deemed insignificant under US law. Apple obviously does not have a large market share (5% is not large) and so don't have a monopoly.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:1)
There are many companies that produce computers on which you can run Windows. There is no monoply on these. Yes, there is product differentiation here.
There is only one company that produces computers on which you can run the Macintosh OS. Now listen carefully to this, because I'm not saying anything more or less, "Apple computer has a monoploy on producing computers that can run the Macintosh OS." That has not always been the case in the past, but it certainly is now.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:2)
I'm fully aware of what monopoly means, though Monoply doesn't seem to be at all relevant to this conversation. Furthermore, you have failed to suggest any part of the definition of monopoly that I have misunderstood.
I'm not saying anything more or less, "Apple computer has a monoploy on producing computers that can run the Macintosh OS."
Agreed, but this is a pointless statement. Microsoft have a monopoly on Windows. Apple computers are an Apple product, just as Windows is a Microsoft product. Thus, it is nonsensical to say that Apple has a monopoly on producing computers that can run the Macintosh OS because it effectively boils down to saying that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products. Thus, it is still a misuse of the term monopoly because you are essentially using a nonsensical statement to introduce a word with heavy negative connotations into the argument, effectively setting up a straw man.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:1)
That's not what I said. And that's where you're missing the difference. Lots of people (you, me, Dell) can build computers what run Windows. There is only one company that can make computers that run the Macintosh OS.
When you are talking about that distinction, then it is the right word to use (providing you can spell it correctly). If I was comparing Apple to Microsoft, then I would fully agree with you. But I am not, and more importanly, the originaly poster who started this whole thing was not either.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:2)
The original poster was an AC who said:
It doesn't make sense for businesses to "switch to Mac" as long as there is a hardware monopoly: just one company with machines running the Mac OS.
These companies are in for a rude shock if they convert to Apple and get screwed with the higher prices, limited availability, and other problems you get when just one company makes the hardware.
So the original poster wasn't comparing Apple to anything at all. He (or she, or it [because no one can tell you're a dog]) just said, without qualification, that Apple has a hardware monopoly. In the sense that the original poster intended, he's right; only Apple makes Apple hardware. But the AC was wrong to use the word "monopoly" to describe this situation. A monopoly isn't a situation in which only one company makes one specific product. It's a situation in which only one company makes an entire class of products.
Let's put Macs into some kind of meaningful class. Let's call 'em "inexpensive single-user computers." I mean "inexpensive" in the relative sense, of course. Say, anything less than $7,500. And I mean "single-user" in the "one person at a time, most of the time" sense, as opposed to large servers that host multiple users most of the time.
Who else makes inexpensive single-user computers? Heck, lots of companies. The local computer store is packed with 'em. You can even buy them at Wal-Mart now.
So clearly no one holds a monopoly on inexpensive single-user computers.
Now, if you try to narrow the class down further-- say, to inexpensive single-user laptop computers that have wide-aspect-ratio screens and titanium cases and that run the Mac OS-- eventually you'll reach a point where only one product or a small group of products is in your class. The fact that these products all come from a single vendor comes as no particular surprise. Applying the word "monopoly" to that situation doesn't really make much sense, because under those terms everything is under the control of a monopoly!
Your working class is "computers that can run the Mac OS." That class is too narrow to be meaningful in this context, because the Macintosh computer is defined as being a computer that runs the Mac OS. You've narrowed your class down to a single product from a single company, making the term "monopoly" meaningless.
I quote blinko: "Monopoly is an Economic term, misusing or over using it distorts your message."
speed differences? (Score:1)
Many, many people get their computers via mail order and never have a chance to try them in person until they've already paid. Macs in particular can be VERY difficult to return for a refund once you've opened the box. Because of this, many people won't have the opportunity to use OS X prior to purchase.
OS X, even on the G4 iMac, still lags. People should know prior to making a purchase decision.
Re:speed differences? (Score:2)
Does jchristopher have a reference beyond the vagueness of "OS X, even on the G4 iMac, still lags."? He should, if he really wants to write an impartial post.
My experience with my G3/500 iBook has been greatly improved since the release of 10.1.5. So, if this was meant as an attempt to be insightful to the lagginess of the GUI, then let's be fair. Set up a Win2K machine that pushes all of the GUI through a PDF rendering level using software based rendering. Since you're moving the processing from the GPU to the CPU, and you're comparing to the new iMac, this theoretical Win2K machine can only utilize a P4/1GHz (I'm feeling generous). Compare this machine with a normal Win2K machine, a new iMac with = 10.1.4, and a new iMac with 10.1.5.
Oh, one other thing, both Win2K machines are required to move the GUI out of kernel-space (what's it in there for anyway? That's just begging for a user-space program to crash the whole system).
Re:speed differences? (Score:1)
Re:speed differences? (Score:1)
No, as the summary says, he wrote a balanced article, not a one-sided bashing.
Re:speed differences? (Score:1)
Not a bad article. (Score:1)
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not trying to flame you, but did you bother to read the article before you posted? All of those points are covered by the author in more or less detail and it really doesn't seem like you've bothered to read the article before you posted. I am truly sorry if I am wrong in that judgment. I use and support both macs and PC's everyday at work and I found the article to be spot on. Of your objections, the only one that is really valid is the one about gaming. Many of the best selling games *do* come out for PC's first. Some are released for both platforms at the same time but the balance are indeed released for PC's first. Cost is on par, except in the low-low end. Office for OS X is on par with Office XP an as for development environments go, what are you asking for? Windows APIs? Other than that you've got just as powerful tools for software development on the Mac as you do on a PC.
In this case, I firmly believe that the scales are pretty evenly balanced overall and each platform has its pluses and minuses. Now, that is exactly what the author of the article expressed in his piece. If you disagree, you should be pointing out what, in his article, is factually wrong rather than making a blanket statement about "the only rational choice..." That's more rhetoric and rather trollish of you (something you claimed to be avoiding at the outset of your post.)
just my thoughts, -inco
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
Don't you mean something providing an office suite with arguably good quality and a proprietary development environment but does cost you an arm and a leg?
Re:PC environment less proprietary (Score:1)
Office XP is extremely proprietary; name one component of it that isn't developed and controlled by Microsoft. Conversely, OpenOffice.org is not proprietary; it is released under the GPL and isn't even controlled by Sun.
In the PC world, if it is good, it ends up on the machines, if it is bad, it leaves.
Correction: In the PC world, if Microsoft deems it good, Microsoft buys it, if Microsoft deems it bad, Microsoft crushes it. At best, Microsoft will opt not to buy something but will lead it on until it is good enough to buy and/or then crush.
Re:Dozens of hardware platforms (Score:2)
That's still ONE platform... x86. If you are using that reasoning, then Windows is a platform. How many companies make Windows? One.
How many compnaies make SGI or Sun computers?
All the people who think they have more choices because they build their own PC is missing one big point. You can only build one kind of computer, an "IBM clone" based on x86. Big selection of platforms.
Re:PC environment less proprietary (Score:2)
Re:PC environment less proprietary (Score:1)
IBM. Well, no, technically they're not making CHRP boxes any more. But it would take all of a couple of hours to make Mac OS X run on it, and since those parts of the OS are open source, you could do it, too.
How many companies' computers can you (as a consumer) port Windows to?
Re:PC environment less proprietary (Score:1)
Do you want me to list scores of companies selling PC's?
All of those companies are selling ONE platform. Apparently you don't understand the word "platform" as it refers to computers. Please bone up on the lingo then start your argument again.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
For "old hokum" it seems that the article is making EXACTLY the same point as you are.
For instance, my mom needed a computer that she could use to check her email and maybe do a little web browsing. The iMac is perfect for her.
Sounds just like one of the conclusions of the author.
I need something that will let me run a quality office suite, a standard development environment and all the latest games but not cost me an arm and a leg. The only rational choice for any of those things is a PC running Windows XP.
Hmm, The ONLY rational choice for ANY of these things? Microsoft Office [microsoft.com] isn't the quality office suite you are looking for? ProjectBuilder [apple.com] & Interface Builder [apple.com] that come with the package aren't exactly standard I guess, you could always get CodeWarrior [metrowerks.com]. And the BSD environment, GCC 3, Java 2 etc. etc. etc. seem pretty standard.
As for "an arm and a leg" I'll grant that Macs tend to sell at a premium but when you are considering the actual specs in detail they are not that much higher, and in some cases are actually lower than comperable PeeCee's.
There are many games available but for the hardcore gamer a PeeCee is still the way to go.
A computer is a tool and this particular tool may not meet your particular needs but of the four needs you mentioned you seem to be mistaken about the Macs ability to meet three of them. It is common misconceptions like yours which prompted the author to write this "old hokum".
Re:Macs much more expensive? (Score:1)
Mac towers come with Gigabit ethernet standard. I don't see any PCs coming with that standard.
Just about all Macs come with CD-RWs standard. Don't need floppies, usually, if you have one of those. Half the PCs I've seen don't come with CD-RWs standard -- just CD-ROMs or DVD-ROMs.
Macs come with Firewire standard. That's a pretty standard port as nearly every digital camcorder uses them.
PCs have more "legacy" hardware, that's true, but the Macs have at least as many of the newer standard ports as stadard equipment than most PCs.
Re:Macs much more expensive? (Score:2)
Re:Pay more to get less, again (Score:1)
Re:Macs much more expensive? (Score:2)
It's not that uncommon among mac users. I suppose it is to distinguish Mac's from Wintel machines (both of which are "PC's" - Personal Computers)
Anyway, once you compare specs, Macs cost a lot more. Especially when you consider such things as standard ports and floppy drives which come on almost all PC's,
I'm not sure what is non-standard about 10/100/1000 ethernet, firewire & USB. I'll grant the lack of legacy ports & it is a nuisance. Ironically the only loss I really regretted was the decidedly NON-standard ADB port because not having it meant I had to get a new Wacom tablet.
As for the "missing" floppy drive - I can honestly say I have never missed having a floppy drive. On my last mac that had one I think I used maybe twice a year (& even then I had other options). Do you even have ANYTHING small enough to fit on a floppy that you can't just email to the recipient? Or are you backing up your system on 10,000 floppies?
Re:iMac is not perfect for that (Score:1)
Re:Yatta!! (Score:1)
Re:Yatta!! (Score:2)
My point? An Apple user buying a PC is not necesarily an abrogation of the Mac. It just means that today he needed something that only PCs provide.
Re:Fast processor speed (Score:1)
you msft-x86 lackey bastard..
msft gave 150 million to protect it's fledgling CE market.. they were scared by NewtonOS and the purchase of NeXT.. and if either were able to be embedded.. and SJ took the cash, and used it to get the iMacs out..
in fact, Newton Inc. had a deal inked to supply every child in grades 1-6 in Texas with an eMate.. and every teacher with a 2000/2100.. and wire the classrooms for Newton.. worth 400mil+.. but Newton, Inc. was overextended.. and just prior to the msft 150mil (in non-controlling stock), SJ pulled in Newton, Inc.. and shortly after the msft deal was done, he disbanded Newton, Inc.. he could have used the Texas deal to pump new cash into Apple.. irregardless of Newton being John Scully's baby..
eh, and Gil Amelio had design plans for the iMacs years prior to SJ's releasing them.. Gil Amelio did't think that business would embrace "candy colored" computers.. but, they did..
and, no apple wasn't about to shut the doors before msft coughed the cash..
Herr Jobs, isn't much better than Gates.. he's just a lesser-bastard..
so, smell that shit, little buddy..
Re:Desktop video? No (Score:1)
back it up with fact, cretin..
i don't see dell offering a DV desktop package, ready to go like Apple does..
nor IBM, nor HP/Compaq, nor Gateway..
just who's peecees and DV packages are you talking about??
Re:Macintosh? Yeah, right!! (Score:1)
i was using CP/M way before you knew what DOS was..
ahhh, weez talkin ta MassaDOSfOO, 'yo dope DoS SkIlLz4367, eh..
and i'm sure your still using EDLIN, or Debug, right??
typical shit-for-brains win-cretin.. take your 6.22/win3.x smack somewhere else, little buddy..
and as for being a Mac Commie..
I'm Big Daddy Stalin to you, dipshit..
Better Red than a win-cretin..