Mac and PCs. A friendly discussion. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Atcote

2011-09-28, 05:50 PM

I've had a not uncommon history with my computers:

I used to be madly into PCs. All my friends used them, they were easier to get my hands on, and they gave some sense of 'control' over their components.
Also, at that time, everyone in the world made fun of Macs. iMacs were especially popular in the internet comedy circuits; my poor little completely passive brain didn't exactly have many positive Mac role models to look to.

What's more, my father got one of the earliest iMacs (as I didn't live with my father, it was not my most used computer). But it wasn't OSX. It was OS 9.9.3.2, I believe (or a rough approximation of those numbers). This was over a decade ago, I think; I still remember the shape of that impact because I was constantly typing in the damn thing, trying to find solutions to its many, many problems.

Needless to say, I didn't use Macs after that. They were a bad sort of computer; the kind that didn't have video games (seriously, it was far, far worse then than it is now), wanted me to use different key shortcuts, and, frankly, barely seemed to work.

Let's fast forward. I'm now an adult; and I'm typing this from my 2008 Macbook Pro, and I no longer own a functioning PC.

There are multiple reasons for this; my last PC fell apart due to poor components (or at least poor functioning), and after getting it fixed three times, I gave up. I wanted the hardware to be someone else's issue; I just wanted to get my work done. So, based on the now positive experiences I'd had at university, I decided to go the Mac path, and I'm not currently looking back. I play my video games on a console, and I make use of my partner's laptop to play my old PC favourites (I still go back to Baldur's Gate every now and again).

It was expensive; that's why this computer is from 2008, because I still can't justify the price of a new one (and with a Mac, unless you're getting a stick or two of RAM, you're going to buy a new one). But I don't really need to. It just meant that I leave my purchases a few years apart, as opposed to a pretty much total make over every two or so years. And what's more, it seems I can trust it to still function over all that time.

But that's my experience. Everyone's different; the majority of the people I work with use Windows, and they aren't slovenly, unenlightened dolts without the full use of their opposable thumbs as I'm apparently meant to think of them (well, by 2006 standards) because I have a glowing picture of a piece of fruit on my computer.

I like my Mac for simplicity of use; and usually, they like their Windows for the same reason (as in, it's affordable, they know how to use it, and they already own the software for it).

And as for compatibility... Never really had a problem. I work with a range of cameras, scanners and printers, and I'm yet to find one that I just cannot use because of my OS.

THAC0

2011-09-28, 06:13 PM

I have better things to spend my money on macs. :smallwink:

Ursus the Grim

2011-09-28, 06:33 PM

There are far too many posts for me to quote and individually reply to here. But the feeling I'm getting is this:

Windows
Less expensive
Better suited for gaming
Easier to modify

Apple
Looks pretty
Better support
Simpler interface

I didn't include compatibility in there, as it conflicts with Apple's interface. If you've got to dual-boot something to get it to work, I don't think you can also claim "simpler interface" as a selling point.

I've not personally had issues with Windows support because I've personally never had an issue I needed to contact them for. I've had experience with 95, 98, and XP. My last laptop was a Vista, shortly after its release. My current is running Windows 7, had it since January and have had no OS-related software issues.

I will agree that there is a smugness to Apple users that kind of really gets a rise out of me sometimes. Kind of a hipster vibe you get. "Oh, you're using Windows? Lololol, lrn 2 compute." I mean, I go into a Grey Dog in Manhattan and I'm surrounded by them. :smallbiggrin:

Kind of like Linux users. . . except they deserve their smugness after wasting all that time and effort for the long-term payoff.:smallwink:

Ranger Mattos

2011-09-28, 06:37 PM

They do tend to be more expensive, but are generally of higher quality. However, if you purchase at the right time, you can get an equivalent system for cheaper than what you'd pay for a Dell.

I actually just had a conversation with my Computer Science teacher about this. He compared it to preferring a VW Beetle over a Ferrari just because the Ferrari cost more. This would be a good argument, except that Beetles and Ferraris aren't made from the same parts. Macs and PCs are. Intel doesn't make special CPUs just for Macs, for example.

If I really wanted to pay $2500 for a laptop with OS X on it, I'd buy this (http://usa.asus.com/Notebooks/Special_Edition/ASUSAutomobili_Lamborghini_VX7/) and hackintosh it.

http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/cert-overview.aspx and http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/mcse.aspx

Ooh, there's a certification for students!

Oh wait, they mean college students. Darn.

Windows? Mac? Do people still use those things? Why? (http://www.stickycomics.com/computer-update/)

Shocking, I know. But both have their uses. As others said, Windows is the best for gaming, and Macs are good for video editing, as well as being very user-friendly. And some programs aren't developed for Linux or other alternative OSs.

Little Brother

2011-09-28, 06:38 PM

Chromebook
And Windows, too, but who cares, Chrome is awesome.

Vaynor

2011-09-28, 06:41 PM

Rawhide

2011-09-28, 06:48 PM

I didn't include compatibility in there, as it conflicts with Apple's interface. If you've got to dual-boot something to get it to work, I don't think you can also claim "simpler interface" as a selling point.

Boot Camp is provided as an option. It is not a requirement. With any system that is not as mainstream as another, there will always be compatibility issues. There are programs that will not run on Windows and requires another operating system, such as Linux, to run (and by this, I mean, that there are no good programs that do the same thing on Windows).

I actually just had a conversation with my Computer Science teacher about this. He compared it to preferring a VW Beetle over a Ferrari just because the Ferrari cost more. This would be a good argument, except that Beetles and Ferraris aren't made from the same parts. Macs and PCs are. Intel doesn't make special CPUs just for Macs, for example.

Apple sources its hardware from the higher grade components of more reliable manufacturers and ensures that the software works with it. You will even often find hardware designed for servers, not desktops, included in their desktop range. The hardware might not be specifically designed for a Mac, but it is generally of a higher grade and has gone through much more rigorous testing.

Chromebook
And Windows, too, but who cares, Chrome is awesome.

Unlike Microsoft, Google scares me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30).

Ranger Mattos

2011-09-28, 06:54 PM

Unlike Microsoft, Google scares me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30).

I still believe that Microsoft is the Evil Empire. See here (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-to-stop-linux-older-windows-from-running-on-windows-8-pcs/9589).

Wreckingrocc

2011-09-28, 06:58 PM

I'm a PC man, through and through, though I've had a rather unusual situation. Spoilering it for length.

About four and a half years ago, having heard family friends rave about every aspect of their macs, my family decided to give it a shot for our laptop. My parents were willing to spend the little extra cash to give my brother and me a computer which would last; we ended up with a MacBook Pro with some damned good specs. We spent the next few hours toying around with iMovie, until it eventually crashed and lost all our work. I'd been using PCs for years, and never encountered anything similar without doing stupid things like overloading the processor (and even then, it only caused huge lag spikes).

Over the next few weeks, the Apple crashed a good 5 or so times on various programs, so we got used to the idea of saving every few minutes. When we eventually grew bored of screwing around with movie and music creation, we realized there wasn't a whole lot else to do on the computer. That's when it hit the old dusty corner.

A year or so later, when we headed on vacation, I brought the mactop with me. As a young artist, I decided to try it out with Inkscape, which had served me so well on my desktop. The only problem is, I couldn't get it to run, for reasons I couldn't figure out. Since it's a 3rd program, the Apple customer support probably wouldn't be of much use; thus, I turned to google to figure it out. I learned that I needed to run x11, which was a platform necessary for a lot of open-source code. I couldn't find it on the Apple website, and thus tried to find it elsewhere on the internet. Whenever I ran the installation, it always alerted me that I already had a version installed on my computer- yet when I searched, it yielded no options. It was a frustrating 6 or so hours which followed. I somehow managed to re-install the newer version, but it was very incompatible because inkscape had been loaded for an even more recent version. Ultimately, it turns out that I had some dated version of x11 in some obscure directory, and that Apple had revoked the x11 download service for my then-dated operating system, insisting that I buy their newest one to enjoy it. ((NOTE: I acknowledge that a lot of these specifics are probably wrong or partially wrong. I'm not an expert.))

Since then, we've turned to the laptop sparingly, as it's a pain to use. In several cases, some major operating system component would crash, and any pressed keys would remain held for all intents and purposes, even upon release, for a minute or so. These usually called for restarts.

I suppose we could get bootcamp and install Windows 7 on it, but that would include buying Snow Leopard from Apple, as bootcamp isn't available for my dated OS. Even then, though, all I'd have would be a big, dated laptop with only one mouse button, no delete key on the keyboard (their "delete" serves as "backspace"), a scratched-up paint coat, and a few broken or near-broken keys. ((Our battery had also been bending out of shape, but Apple replaced it for free. I suppose there is some good in their services, if not their manufacturing.))

I know my experience was very unusual, and due mostly to the fact that our operating system is a dated piece of trash, but Apple shouldn't have just cut all ties to their software if they're going to keep it so closed-source. It just reeks of capitalism. Any problems with my PCs are easily enough solved with good ol' tech forums, usually found through google.

Rawhide

2011-09-28, 07:03 PM

I still believe that Microsoft is the Evil Empire. See here (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-to-stop-linux-older-windows-from-running-on-windows-8-pcs/9589).

I didn't say that they didn't/don't do some things I don't like/disagree with. Just that they don't scare me like Google does.

See also: The first article I linked about why certification like that is a bad idea.

Trog

2011-09-28, 07:04 PM

I own a mac laptop, a PC laptop running Windows 7, and a desktop running XP. I work as a graphic designer and have for the past 17 years worked full time on macs. I prefer the Mac OS. OS preference is, at this point, largely a matter of one's individual tastes as both Mac and Windows OSes do about 95% of the same things and are equally as customizable in my experience.

In general I find that Mac is the leader for user interface innovation. PCs seem to follow many of Mac's leads and have for some time though PCs do, every now and then, make a good contribution as well. But they are clearly not moving forward at the pace that the Mac OS is.

Which brings me to what I don't like in Macs... how quickly many of their models go obsolete. The price for rapid change is leaving your old hardware in the dust and Macs seem to excel at this whether through components that are not interchangeable from model to model, or through the need for more and more RAM to run their OS that can be shoved into your model, or the addition of innovations such as touchpad gestures which older models do not support. And of course, like practically everyone on the planet, I think Mac are too high priced.

All that being said I'd much sooner own a mac than a PC. Personal preference. My pocketbook just hopes I don't have to buy one anytime soon though.

Gullintanni

2011-09-28, 07:07 PM

The single biggest difference between the two, is price. My G73 cost me $1400 two years ago, for an i7 with 1TB of drive space, 8GB of RAM, a 1GB AMD/ATi Radeon 5870 GPU, and a 17.3" 1080p LED backlit screen, every bit as nice as any apple display I've ever seen.

I just wanted to say as a fellow G73 owner, 1000 times this. This is the holy grail of affordable desktop replacement computers. ASUS is all win.

CarpeGuitarrem

2011-09-28, 07:09 PM

shawnhcorey

2011-09-28, 07:15 PM

And some programs aren't developed for Linux or other alternative OSs.

But there alternatives for all the popular software, often of better quality. And all upgrades are free and automatic. This means all software, not just the OS. Upgrades for all your installed software are checked for daily and you are alerted to when there are some.

For those who are interested, I suggest you look at Linux Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) or Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).

Rawhide

2011-09-28, 07:26 PM

There's a sense in which the "Macs vs. PCs" debate is really screwy, and it's this: there is no such thing as "a PC".

By "PC" we refer to a computer from one of any number of manufacturers that runs Windows natively.

By "Mac" we refer to a computer assembled, hardware + software, by Apple.

See the difference here? It's a comparison between a piece of software attached to one of many different types of hardware and a piece of software hardwired into a piece of hardware, more or less. (I know it's not technically hardwired, because you can't hardwire software, but that's more or less the idea. Apple chains together its operating system with its hardware, thus bypassing much compatibility difficulty because it cuts out third parties.)

So it's not really an even comparison. There is no such thing as a "PC", only a personal computer that runs Windows, and those are all over the board, from cheap pieces of trash to top-of-the-line machines that perform incredibly. The prices are also everywhere at once, depending on how the manufacturers place them, particularly in relation to how much competition is going on between hardware makers.

The true equivalent competition would be "Macs vs. Dells" or "Macs vs. HPs" or "Macs vs. Asus(es?)" or "Macs vs. Toshibas" or...well...you get the picture.

Pretty much one of the major things the original article I linked said. But even that isn't a true comparison.

But there alternatives for all the popular software, often of better quality. And all upgrades are free and automatic. This means all software, not just the OS. Upgrades for all your installed software are checked for daily and you are alerted to when there are some.

For those who are interested, I suggest you look at Linux Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) or Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).

The alternatives are not always there and, when they are, are often not up to the same standard (either in user interface or functionality).

As for price, a tech savvy computer enthusiast might very well be able to use Linux for relatively cheap, but it has been discovered that businesses running Linux on their desktops will usually have an equivalent or higher TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

Ranger Mattos

2011-09-28, 07:29 PM

I didn't say that they didn't/don't do some things I don't like/disagree with. Just that they don't scare me like Google does.

See also: The first article I linked about why certification like that is a bad idea.

Yes, Google is scary. But Windows 8 Certification requires that no other OS can be installed on the computer. Not even previous versions of Windows. That doesn't scare you?

But there alternatives for all the popular software, often of better quality. And all upgrades are free and automatic. This means all software, not just the OS. Upgrades for all your installed software are checked for daily and you are alerted to when there are some.

For those who are interested, I suggest you look at Linux Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) or Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).

True.

shawnhcorey

2011-09-28, 07:46 PM

The alternatives are not always there and, when they are, are often not up to the same standard (either in user interface or functionality).

As for price, a tech savvy computer enthusiast might very well be able to use Linux for relatively cheap, but it has been discovered that businesses running Linux on their desktops will usually have an equivalent or higher TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

That was true 5 years ago. It's not any more. You don't need to be a Linux tech to install and run Linux. In fact, you don't need to know more about it than you do Windows.

And the TCO was never higher for Linux. That's because they included the cost to re-train the employees in Linux software as part of the total cost but didn't include the cost of training on Windows. (Apparently they thought you could pick this up by osmosis or something.)

Lord Seth

2011-09-28, 07:57 PM

Also, I'm tired of the smugness of Apple, and of mac users?Windows users are just as bad, quite frankly.
Want to make a video? On Mac, you've got iMovie for most basic applications, whereas on Windows you can use the crappy bloatware that comes with it, or you can get another program.iMovie is terrible. Now, mind you, it wasn't always; before iMovie '08 came out, it was, for a built-in video editing program, quite good. But they changed practically everything about it in iMovie '08 and turned what was a great program into a mess. I went back to iMovie HD just so I could edit without a headache. Nowadays I use Final Cut, but before then I pretty much had to use the older version of iMovie for the sake of my sanity. I can't comment on how iMovie holds up to whatever video software Windows ships with (it used to be Windows Movie Maker which was okay from my very limited experience with it, but it looks like they replaced it with something else), but I wouldn't suggest iMovie to anyone.

To geeks such as we, that's usually not a big deal, but to the uninitiated it can be intimidating. There's a chance of getting another crappy program, and you might have to spend money. If you look up enough reviews to assure the quality of whatever you're getting, even if it's free, you're out maybe an hour of time that you could've used to make the video.All of this applies to Macs as well, and it seems an odd kind of logic besides. You might as well use this logic to advocate only using bicycles and never buying a car. "Why spend money and time getting a car? You might not like the one you get, and in the time you spend buying one, you could've just ridden to a place on a bicycle!"

Rawhide

2011-09-28, 08:04 PM

That was true 5 years ago. It's not any more. You don't need to be a Linux tech to install and run Linux. In fact, you don't need to know more about it than you do Windows.

No, that is still true today. Linux still has quite a way to go before it comes close to the commercial operating systems on usability for the end user. It is much easier to install than it used to be, but it, as a whole, is far from the experience the average non-technical end user wants. I'm not saying that you need to be a techie to use it, I'm saying that you need to be a techie to really make use of it.

And the TCO was never higher for Linux. That's because they included the cost to re-train the employees in Linux software as part of the total cost but didn't include the cost of training on Windows. (Apparently they thought you could pick this up by osmosis or something.)

No, it's because they included the support plans. Support plans which were either included or cheaper with the equivalent commercial products.

Arminius

2011-09-28, 09:53 PM

It really depends on the user. I personally prefer PCs. I can buy the parts I want online and put the machine together myself. Then I can install whatever OS I want(meaning archlinux). The end result is a computer suited for my needs at a low price.

Macs strike me as overpriced for the hardware you get. That said, they are UNIX based, which is nice. Their main value I think, is for people like my sister. She is terrifyingly computer illiterate. She runs XP and if it was up to her she wouldn't have any kind of anti-virus at all. Me and her husband ganged up and forced her to install one. But it doesn't do much good. She uses weak passwords and doesn't change them after evidence they have been compromised. She signs up for coupon sites, and advertising offers. It is just a nightmare every time I visit her. If she got a Mac a good deal(though not all) of my worry over the way she treats her computer would go away. She wouldn't have to think about anything, it will just work. If she runs into a problem, she can have the Apple techs deal with it.

bluewind95

2011-09-28, 09:59 PM

Rawhide

2011-09-28, 10:15 PM

I use Windows and dislike Macs. Yes, I've used them. Thing is, I'm a very picky user and can be overly annoyed by things that would, to many, if not most, people be a minor thing. The interface of a mac just rubs me the wrong way. I also really, really dislike the lack of a second mouse button, which is something I have learned to practically depend on. The shape of the dock (... that's the task bar equivalent, yes?) is incredibly annoying to me. The size even more so. I don't find the interface especially intuitive (neither is Windows a very intuitive one, but at least I'm used to it). And the lack of program compatibility is also a huge problem for me. It is one reason I never could switch to a Linux, even though I did download and like Ubuntu.

I also think that it's highly unethical for Apple salespeople to tell potential buyers that macs don't get viruses. They DO. I'm sure they get less virus issues than Windows does, and THAT is what they should tell people. I mean, they don't fool me or anyone with experience, but new users? That's just cruel. I also have to shake my head when Apple salespeople fail to justify WHY I should pay almost twice the amount of money for a mac than I would pay for a more powerful computer of any other brand. Just because it's Apple? I don't think so!

And finally, I am disgusted by the attitude of some people I can only call Maczombies. These are the people who will scoff when you use something that's not Apple, who believe iPods are not mp3 players, and Macbooks are not laptops/notebooks/whatever. The people who will proclaim that they will not allow a PC into their home (... but own an Xbox. Wow), and who think that Mac is the "best thing ever". Also the same people who will complain about the lack of money and STILL buy a computer that is about twice as expensive as a much more powerful one of any other brand. I'm well-aware that there are Winzombies too. But I've met far more Maczombies than Winzombies.

I don't say that Apple's OS is bad. It's good, I'm sure. I just don't like it and will stick to Windows till I don't like it anymore, and then I'll seek another OS that I like.

Plug a mouse with a second button into a Mac and boom, you have a second button. It behaves the same way as a second button does on a Windows PC. You can also hold down a button on the keyboard then click to get the same functionality. Multi touch touchpads have a second button gesture (press one finger down then tap the other). I'm sorry, but I really dislike the "It's only got one button!" argument. It's just not true.

The dock size can be changed, as can the zoom size (right down to no zoom) of the application you are currently hovering over.

Prices fluctuate between brands all the time. Certain Windows based PCs will be much more expensive than other Windows based PCs at one part of the cycle, while cheaper at others. Apple is no different. Macintosh computers will sometimes be cheaper than, or at least comparable to, your preferred brand of Windows based PC. Given that Apple is just one company competing against many Windows based PCs, there's likely to always be a Windows based PC that is cheaper, if you compare all brands, due to them all operating on different cycles.

Is it unethical to say something you believe to be true? If a salesperson believes that to be the case, they should be educated that there are some viruses that can infect a Mac, even though the chance and number of them is far less, but it isn't exactly unethical. Additionally, salespeople should be educated that many Acer computers don't include Bluetooth, despite having a Bluetooth button (http://davidbau.com/archives/2006/05/24/owning_the_experience.html). Which is a salesperson mistake that the article implies was deliberately engineered by Acer (and the evidence certainly seems to corroborate that claim, having that exact model of Acer laptop in my back room, I can verify that the evidence is correct).

Raistlin1040

2011-09-28, 10:27 PM

For a personal computer, as someone who games and doesn't do video editing, I use a PC and enjoy it. However, I would be very open to owning an iPad or a Macbook as well. I like them both, but for the price, Windows is more in my range.

Coidzor

2011-09-28, 10:37 PM

I still believe that Microsoft is the Evil Empire. See here (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-to-stop-linux-older-windows-from-running-on-windows-8-pcs/9589).

Yes, Google is scary. But Windows 8 Certification requires that no other OS can be installed on the computer. Not even previous versions of Windows. That doesn't scare you?

Between Google being Google, this kind of thing, and the Cloud's promise of taking away any illusion of actually owning anything involved in my computing experience, technology's promise of the future has begun to depress me more than delight me.

Talya

2011-09-28, 10:41 PM

Between Google being Google, this kind of thing, and the Cloud's promise of taking away any illusion of actually owning anything involved in my computing experience, technology's promise of the future has begun to depress me more than delight me.

Cloud-schmoud. They can have my 6TB of storage on a NAS at home when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I actually like google for the few products they have that I use, but other than that? No.

bluewind95

2011-09-28, 10:59 PM

Plug a mouse with a second button into a Mac and boom, you have a second button. It behaves the same way as a second button does on a Windows PC. You can also hold down a button on the keyboard then click to get the same functionality. Multi touch touchpads have a second button gesture (press one finger down then tap the other). I'm sorry, but I really dislike the "It's only got one button!" argument. It's just not true.

If I use a laptop, I do not want to be plugging in another mouse, in part because I use a laptop where I do not have space for said mouse. Having to click while holding down a key is extremely distracting for me. And touchpads with a second button gesture =/= an actual second button. I need to press down two fingers rather than one. It's just not the same to me. Like I said... I'm a VERY picky user that is highly annoyed by seemingly small things. And while they may have a second-button functionality, they still have only one actual button. Since it's the actual button that I want, it still is a very valid argument for me, I would say.

The dock size can be changed, as can the zoom size (right down to no zoom) of the application you are currently hovering over.
Yes. I know. A mac user showed me. It still bugs me because it doesn't... how to explain... it doesn't order itself to a way that I can just visually ignore. The Windows taskbar is a big square that uses a certain (small) area of the screen vertically and ALL of it horizontally. Mentally, I simply ignore this part of the screen. The icons are all in squarea, with the title (or part of it) of the window and all of them are bordered and sometimes even grouped together. This enables me to very quickly mentally sort through them. Mac's dock doesn't do this. It may become nice and small, but then it only uses a fraction of the horizontal space, so I can't mentally ignore it and then it feels like it's covering part of the screen and it annoys and distracts me SO much. I seem to have some visual perception difficulties (I also cannot read pages with enough colored fonts properly. They can literally give me a headache. And I also can't play Taipei with colors).

Prices fluctuate between brands all the time. Certain Windows based PCs will be much more expensive than other Windows based PCs at one part of the cycle, while cheaper at others. Apple is no different. Macintosh computers will sometimes be cheaper than, or at least comparable to, your preferred brand of Windows based PC. Given that Apple is just one company competing against many Windows based PCs, there's likely to always be a Windows based PC that is cheaper, if you compare all brands, due to them all operating on different cycles.
I've actually never seen a mac computer that is comparable in price to a computer of another brand that also has comparable specs. But I have seen these fluctuations between other brands. Sony is currently expensive.

Is it unethical to say something you believe to be true? If a salesperson believes that to be the case, they should be educated that there are some viruses that can infect a Mac, even though the chance and number of them is far less, but it isn't exactly unethical. Additionally, salespeople should be educated that many Acer computers don't include Bluetooth, despite having a Bluetooth button (http://davidbau.com/archives/2006/05/24/owning_the_experience.html). Which is a salesperson mistake that the article implies was deliberately engineered by Acer (and the evidence certainly seems to corroborate that claim, having that exact model of Acer laptop in my back room, I can verify that the evidence is correct).
As far as I've seen, the company itself seems to spread the belief they're immune to viruses. I think that they really ought to not do that. And as for what you said, then Acer is an unethical company. I shall avoid buying from them.

OracleofWuffing

2011-09-28, 11:20 PM

Plug a mouse with a second button into a Mac and boom, you have a second button. It behaves the same way as a second button does on a Windows PC. You can also hold down a button on the keyboard then click to get the same functionality. Multi touch touchpads have a second button gesture (press one finger down then tap the other). I'm sorry, but I really dislike the "It's only got one button!" argument. It's just not true.
While we're on that matter, the default input option for new iMacs and Mac Pros is the Apple Magic Mouse, which is a two-button mouse (Granted, it defaults to one-button, but that is merely a software setting). Ninja'ed here because it seems someone wants buttons and not near-buttons.

It should also be noted that if Mac Sales Reps are saying that Macs don't get viruses, that is going against what corporate has told them to say. Apple has previously done advice drives to advise customers to use antivirus programs (http://web.archive.org/web/20080914170340/http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2550), and has made it publicly clear (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4651) that Mac Malware does exist.

That said, yeah, I'm a Mac user via a "Mac Clone" computer and a Unibody MacBook (purchased used from eBay). I simply do agree with the situation that it's too expensive for me to buy a real mac, and I simply do love the aesthetics of MacOS. The big programs I run are in the Adobe Creative Suite, so I really could just work with either Windows or MacOS. I previously was on XP, and was kind of getting frustrated at how I'd be devoting a quarter to half of my resources just running various anti-Xware programs. Yes, I know, I just said Macs get malware, but for the kind of uses I'm using a computer for, a lot of the malware I run across just targeted XP/Vista/7- I acknowledge that things change over time and other peoples' mileage varies. I do have antivirus programs ready, however, I have not yet detected them. This doesn't mean malware doesn't exist, it does, I just haven't happened upon it yet within the grounds of my personal internet usage- when I did elsewhen.

(Oh! Also! VERY LITTLE THING HERE BUT I LIKE IT EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERSNICKETY: I can change icons of files and documents individually. YAY!)

I've also tried Linux (Ubuntu specifically), but, well... As much as I enjoyed using it, as much as I loved not needing to restart my computer every other day for updates, and as much as I enjoyed the price tag (:smalltongue:), it's just too much busywork to go out and get an abstraction layer or what have you sat up so I could use programs that weren't developed for Linux. Yes, alternatives exist, with varying levels of compatibility with brand-name software, yes, open source is awesome, but no, people just expect me to work in brand-name world with no tolerance for any mix-ups due to almost-compatible software. It was even worse shopping for additional components that worked as planned- I still can't get a wireless card working here that should. I was also soured that a system upgrade removed write permissions from one of my partitions with no warning. Again, though, that's just an individual experience.

I think the biggest problem I had with the XP environment was a driver issue with my video/capture card. Launching the provided TV capture program caused the software to promptly quit that program. The solution was to roll back to a different driver, which would allow the program to start up and throw an error asking me to close the program, then drag that error message off screen and ignore it until I wanted to close the program- it'd still function normally. TRUTH BE TOLD, THIS IS NOT WINDOWS' FAULT. But Proximity Bias makes fools of us all.

Also, I was kind of expecting this to be linked about five times by now (http://xkcd.com/934/).

Rawhide

2011-09-28, 11:28 PM

If I use a laptop, I do not want to be plugging in another mouse, in part because I use a laptop where I do not have space for said mouse. Having to click while holding down a key is extremely distracting for me. And touchpads with a second button gesture =/= an actual second button. I need to press down two fingers rather than one. It's just not the same to me. Like I said... I'm a VERY picky user that is highly annoyed by seemingly small things. And while they may have a second-button functionality, they still have only one actual button. Since it's the actual button that I want, it still is a very valid argument for me, I would say.

See, that's a slightly different argument and one I can definitely accept. In the very specific instance of using a laptop without facility for an external mouse and the user much, much, much preferring to have two physical buttons, then the design can be a bit of a drawback. I would suggest giving the multi touch gesture for the second button a try though (I mean, not just a quick test, but enough to get used to it). It's really simple, natural, and hardly all that different from using the second button on a mouse. Especially as you already have one finger on the touchpad just to move the cursor.

Yes. I know. A mac user showed me. It still bugs me because it doesn't... how to explain... it doesn't order itself to a way that I can just visually ignore. The Windows taskbar is a big square that uses a certain (small) area of the screen vertically and ALL of it horizontally. Mentally, I simply ignore this part of the screen. The icons are all in squarea, with the title (or part of it) of the window and all of them are bordered and sometimes even grouped together. This enables me to very quickly mentally sort through them. Mac's dock doesn't do this. It may become nice and small, but then it only uses a fraction of the horizontal space, so I can't mentally ignore it and then it feels like it's covering part of the screen and it annoys and distracts me SO much. I seem to have some visual perception difficulties (I also cannot read pages with enough colored fonts properly. They can literally give me a headache. And I also can't play Taipei with colors).

There's a setting to make it always take up all of the screen horizontally, too.

I've actually never seen a mac computer that is comparable in price to a computer of another brand that also has comparable specs. But I have seen these fluctuations between other brands. Sony is currently expensive.

I have. Buy at the right time and they can be cheaper than Dell.

As far as I've seen, the company itself seems to spread the belief they're immune to viruses. I think that they really ought to not do that. And as for what you said, then Acer is an unethical company. I shall avoid buying from them.

From what I've seen, I don't believe that this is the case. There are far less viruses that can infect Macs, but I don't believe that the company itself is saying that their operating system cannot get infected.

EDIT: Ninja'd by someone with proof that they don't.

OracleofWuffing

2011-09-29, 12:59 AM

Not to put too fine a point on it, I guess my last post did come across as heavily Mac-centric... I do have certifications through Dell (these are not the same certifications as Rawhide informed us- those are broader and deeper- mine are specific for Dell and don't cover network or software issues farther than Dell deems necessary for hardware repairs) and worked repair and retail during the XP to Vista switch, and again after 7 had been established. From my personal viewpoint, a lot of the "violent" malware I dealt with was generally the result of poor user habits- they'd have got infected regardless of the OS in a "perfect" world.

Truth be told, my experience in 7 does lead me to believe that Microsoft is handling things as effectively as possible. Updates are (especially compared to its predecessors) small, and MSSE has generally received positive opinions across the board- and it's free. Built-in FTP access, in a sense, was nice. Hands down, if you want computer games, you want something Windows-based, and a chunk of companies that make games for MacOS and Windows actually just use a WINE-like to run the game in MacOS instead of actually writing separate code.

I'll reiterate that Windows is more ubiquitous, even outside of computer games. If you apply for employment somewhere, you're generally going to get more odd looks asking if they have Mac support than if they have Windows support. And, well, as much as Libre/OpenOffice rocks, it's business standard to use Word and PowerPoint while on the clock. Yes, you can get MS Office for MacOS, but yeesh, if you're doing that please send some of that money my way.:smallbiggrin:

factotum

2011-09-29, 01:48 AM

Yes, Google is scary. But Windows 8 Certification requires that no other OS can be installed on the computer. Not even previous versions of Windows. That doesn't scare you?

If it were true, yes, that would scare me. However, the currently proposed Windows 8 certification just *requires* that the PC uses a key-signed boot sequence. If the computer manufacturer chooses not to include a method of disabling this, or doesn't include a method of including new signing keys for new operating systems, then that isn't Microsoft's fault because the specification doesn't say they have to not allow those things!

As for the subject of this thread, I don't like Macs and always have done, ever since the days I saw our graphic designers using Photoshop on System 9 (predecessor to OS X). I just didn't understand the attraction then, and I don't now. If you're really in need of getting rid of far more money than you have to, mail it to me--I'll use it responsibly, honest! :smallwink:

ShortOne

2011-09-29, 02:23 AM

Macs are better if you want a secure system, a computer that is physically shinier (unless you're Hackintoshing), and insanely superior support. Also for people who run high-end art programs.

Windows for compatability. Almost all computer games run on Windows, while there are fewer for Macs.

On this subject, I had a dream last night that someone gave me a this-gen Macbook Pro. I was so happy... :smallsigh:

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-29, 03:58 AM

To be fair I have never considered using a Mac, since I am too much of a gamer.

Anyway, I agree with Talya: even if you consider the (maybe) higher quality parts in Macs, the price is at least 50% hot air. You pay for the look and the brand. I just bought an ASUS G74SX for the wopping price of $1100. The equivalent performance in a Mac would cost me 2 or 3 times as much. Easily.

The Operating system debate is another issue; Os X looks nice; I have never used it but I do love Gnome, which at least on the surface looks very similar. On the other hand Windows 7 is my favorite OS yet.

(Btw someone brought up Vista as a buggy OS... No it wasn't, not really. I never had a single issue with it, even before the service pack).

valadil

2011-09-29, 04:08 AM

No, that is still true today. Linux still has quite a way to go before it comes close to the commercial operating systems on usability for the end user. It is much easier to install than it used to be, but it, as a whole, is far from the experience the average non-technical end user wants. I'm not saying that you need to be a techie to use it, I'm saying that you need to be a techie to really make use of it.

Out of curiosity, what does the average user need out of a computer in a work environment? Most of what I see people doing takes place in a web browser, email client, word processor, or Excel. I can understand that someone with Excel training wouldn't want to relearn Open/LibreOffice, but for everything else, why not Linux? FWIW, I'm not really trying to argue here, I'm actually curious because I'm so out of touch with what regular users do.

I recommend Macs to anyone who isn't interested in gaming. It's been a while since I've done tech support (see my out of touch comment above), but Mac users generally have less hassle with their machines. I switched my parents to a Mac and stopped having to clean up viruses during Thanksgiving dinner. In fact my parents don't ask for computer help at all any more. Yes, their needs are simple. They email photos and sometimes check the news or burn CDs. They can do all that on their Mac, but they couldn't on Windows.

But that's not to say that Macs should be reserved for casual computer users. Several of my developer friends switched to Mac too. Their reasoning is that the Mac gets in their way less. They spend more time writing code and less time waiting for this week's MS updates to finish rebooting. They're too busy being productive to play junior sysadmin for a couple hours each day just to keep the system running.

I keep telling myself my next machine will be a Mac, but it hasn't happened yet. At the end of the day I really enjoy Linux and would install Linux on any machine I own. Until that changes I just don't see the point in paying the Apple tax and not using OS X.

Drascin

2011-09-29, 04:47 AM

Personally, I just see my friends with Mac continuously chomp at the bit for having to "surrender" and use "that piece of **** Windows" (yes, their words. Mac users around these parts tend a bit towards the militant) anyway every time they want to do anything, and shrug and keep using my little self-built PC. Never quite saw the point in buying a computer almost double the price if you're going to end up running the thing you're supposedly trying to avoid anyway, if you ask me, but hey.

Plus I enjoy tinkering with my computer too much :smallbiggrin:.

The Succubus

2011-09-29, 04:52 AM

I'm completely faithless when it comes to choosing an OS.

The majority of my computers have been windows, true, but I've also had a little experience with Linux flavours as well (Suse being my preference). I also own a very old and trusty iMac G5 (the flat screen version) and a Powerbook G4 (the very high end expensive one). The Powerbook has some real overheating issues, together with a psychotic fan but I've been really pleased with them overall. The Intel Macs? I'm less impressed with them to be honest. Granted, there's a greater range of software for them but they don't *feel* like real Macs to me, more like PCs in drag. Please note this purely my *feeling* on it and not subject to scientific scrutiny.

Squeejee

2011-09-29, 05:03 AM

(this is a greatly abridged version of a fantastic metaphor I once read on this subject)

Windows is a huge city - everything is for sale, if you're willing to traverse those dark alleys to find it. If you can avoid the muggers and the false storefronts, you can turn your bare-bones apartment into a very nice place with a high upkeep.

Apple is a clean dictatorship. You can buy whatever the overlord tells you you're allowed to buy, and at the price he tells you to pay - but for most people, he sells everything a citizen needs, so why bother looking elsewhere?

Linux is the untamed wilds. Freedom, but you must be strong enough to build your own home - and if you want something from either of the cities, you must wait until the object in question is dumped into the river so you can fish it out.

On another note, I bought a better iPhone recently - it's called a Droid. The best part is that it worked perfectly out of the box and I didn't have to go through any lengthy jail-breaking process to make it do what it's supposed to do! It was so refreshing to buy a device that I didn't even have to "set up" or "customize" to make it do what I want that I can really see the appeal of macs now. If they ever make a Mac as powerful as my Alienware, or Windows emulation for Linux that isn't dual-booting and doesn't suck, I'll certainly be open-minded about my next computer buy - but until then, I'm a PC (out of necessity).

Archonic Energy

2011-09-29, 05:08 AM

may i ask something?

what actually makes "Macs better for art/video editing" because i honestly can't think of a single reason, other than that artists like the look/feel of Macs.

I have had no problem editing videos on my laptop and have done several wedding videos using nothing more than windows movie maker and freeware cutting/joining software. anything more and i could buy specialist software for the PC for the same price as the equlivent software for the Mac

Also; i'll second Avilan as someone who had no problems with Vista during the lifetime of the PC i used it with. (on to 7 now...)

The Succubus

2011-09-29, 05:26 AM

Dogmantra

2011-09-29, 05:32 AM

what actually makes "Macs better for art/video editing" because i honestly can't think of a single reason, other than that artists like the look/feel of Macs.

As far as I know, it's pretty much that the high end software is only for Mac. I think people tend to state "Macs are better for arty stuff" without making sure to clarify that it really only comes into play at the top. iMovie won't necessarily get you better results than Windows Movie Maker, and if you're used to Windows, you'll almost certainly do a better job with the latter.

As for my opinion on Macs vs PCs, I can't respect a company that gives you this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Apple_iMac_Keyboard_A1242.JPG) as a desktop keyboard. I know you can get your own keyboard, but I want to at least have something that isn't horrible to type on right out of the box. That's a laptop keyboard, which I'm fine with, on a laptop, but I like actually getting feedback when I type, and I like staggered keys and I like all the things that were cut so that the laptop would close (desktops don't close). I bought a Dell recently and it came with a keyboard like this (http://www1.pcmag.com/media/images/189937-dell-studio-desktop-keyboard-and-mouse.jpg). Luckily I had a spare because that's not a keyboard, that's a punishment. I would actually use that as a punishment. "Son," I'd say, "you lied to me and stayed out past the time we agreed, I'm afraid you're going to use the nasty keyboard for a month. Enjoy never quite knowing if you're typing what you want to type."

(amusingly, I really like the default hardware built into Macbooks as opposed to other laptops, the touchpad is swell, and the keyboard isn't bad, for a laptop keyboard)

Runestar

2011-09-29, 06:15 AM

I am using that apple wireless keyboard and I generally have no problems with it (save for F-numbered shortcuts). I rarely ever used the numpad, so it is no real loss, and the shortened keyboard helps when you are trying to use a trackpad alongside it. :smallsmile: Plus, Mac has bootcamp, which lets you install windows (and thus run windows-only programs).

I have been using an Imac for about 3 months now. I made the switch as my PC was getting slower and slower and I was getting a little frustrated with Windows. Personally, my experience is that there seems to be some sort of premium you pay for the "apple experience", considering that my Imac cost roughly twice as much as if I had bought a Windows PC from a DIY shop.

The best analogy I can think of is why people would rather pay $6 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks rather than $1 at a coffee shop or brew it themselves. It's not so much the coffee, but the improved experience that comes with it.

1) The Imac is gorgeous indeed and doesn't clutter up my desk (I can't place my CPU on the floor as my table is glued to the wall). I get more room and feel better just looking at my neater workspace.

2) The 27' screen is great when working with multiple documents (though I suffered from 2+ weeks of strained eyes adjusting). I can have 2 windows open side by side and not have to squint or keep alt-tabbing.

3) I don't have to install an array of resource-hogging programs designed to keep my comp running in tip top condition. Before, I had CC-Cleaner, advancesystemcare, comodo, AVG and malwarebytes; running them ever so often was time-consuming. I am not sure if I ever need to defrag my imac though.

4) I find the trackpad is great for surfing, but a little cumbersome when it comes to click-dragging and word-processing. Also, it sucks battery life like crazy.

5) The OS is just fast. Ironically, Lion seems to actually slow my PC down a little, but overall, it's been a smooth experience thus far.

Hope my humble experience helps sheds some light. :smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-29, 06:23 AM

Another comparison between Macs, Linux and Windows I read was as Airlines. This was a few years back (Windows 2000 era) but it still holds some truth:

Windows: Efficient, quite beautiful terminal, large sturdy-lucking planes and a lot of options to choose from. Unfortunately an occasional plane spontaneously explode mid-air.

Mac: Extremely clean and futuristic terminal. Beautiful and polite personnel that refuses to answer your questions with anything else than a stern "That's a need to know only issue and you don't need to know". The planes look like something from a 60ies SF movie but unfortunately you can only fly first class and is only allowed to fly to one specific destination.

Linux: Everyone bring their own unique-looking chair out on the tarmac and sit down in an air-plane shaped form. All passengers then starts flapping their arms and some of them takes off, some does not.

Now as I said this was then.

Windows is basically equal to Mac OS, the only main difference is that Windows has to deal with an infinity of hardware configurations. Quite a few Linux distributions are fully acceptable as noob / office OS (certainly Ubuntu, SuSe and one or two more are definitely as easy to install as Windows): in fact a complete noob probably has no preconceptions and will learn it very quickly.

Talya

2011-09-29, 06:26 AM

It's not so much the hardware, it's more the software that has been developed for it. Logic and Logic Express are incredible tools for music making and Garageband is a good beginner's step into learning them. A lot of Adobe's software such as Illustrator and Photoshop are *rumoured* to run more smoothly on a Mac, due to a better job workflow.

That distinction disappeared before OSX even came out. Part of the reason Mac switched to intel CPUs is because they were no longer outperforming windows in their signature apps. They still aren't. Adobe and Apple have a very unfriendly relationship these days (try to get Flash working on your iPhone), and none of the old signature Adobe publishing or editing software runs faster in OSX than it does in windows.

Also, no, the Mac is not "more secure" than windows. In fact, several studies have shown it's considerably less so. However, Windows has its padlock and deadbolt and alarm system in an area frequented by master thieves. Apple usually doesn't bother with even a keylock (how many mac owners bother with antivirus software?) because they live in the hills and there are no people there.

factotum

2011-09-29, 06:31 AM

They spend more time writing code and less time waiting for this week's MS updates to finish rebooting. They're too busy being productive to play junior sysadmin for a couple hours each day just to keep the system running.

Sorry, this is just utter FUD. MS release major tranches of updates once a month (the second Tuesday, so-called "patch Tuesday") unless something really critical comes up, which is fairly rare. The only updates you'll usually see outside that window are things like Windows Defender updates, which most certainly don't take two hours to install! If anyone you know is genuinely spending 2 hours a day just keeping their Windows system going then they must have been leaving it attached to the Internet with no virus scanner or firewall, or something like that!

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-29, 06:34 AM

That distinction disappeared before OSX even came out. Part of the reason Mac switched to intel CPUs is because they were no longer outperforming windows in their signature apps. They still aren't. Adobe and Apple have a very unfriendly relationship these days (try to get Flash working on your iPhone), and none of the old signature Adobe publishing or editing software runs faster in OSX than it does in windows.

Also, no, the Mac is not "more secure" than windows. In fact, several studies have shown it's considerably less so. However, Windows has its padlock and deadbolt and alarm system in an area frequented by master thieves. Apple usually doesn't bother with even a keylock (how many mac owners bother with antivirus software?) because they live in the hills and there are no people there.

This is true; the reason Mac is still favored by architects, artists and musicians is because of reputation and tradition; in the old days Mac Software for these fields were vastly superior to anything available for Windows at the time.

The security fallacy is also true; the main reason is that it's not worth the time and effort to make malware and viruses for Mac OS since well "nobody" uses it. It's the same with say Firefox, which long was hyped as much safer than IE but as soon as it became a major browser had to step away from that claim.

Phishfood

2011-09-29, 06:56 AM

I have both. I have a desktop PC I built that runs Windows, and a Macbook. After using both for many years, I greatly prefer the OS of my Macbook. However, I like the customizability of my desktop's hardware, and that I can play more games on it (both due to the fact that it runs Windows and that my laptop is not made for gaming).

Same, Windows desktop +macbook.

What sold me was that I pitted my £2,000 gaming rig vs my £1,000 mac at booting up.

Switch PC on
Switch macbook on

Macbook booted and ready to use
PC switches to "windows logo loading screen thing"

I'm not going to argue a "better" OS, its a right tool for the job thing.
Apple laptops are awesome, great battery life, sturdy, quick.
Windows is cheaper and easier to modify and more widely supported.

If it weren't for being a gamer I guess I would be an apple convert. I don't have any dependants draining my pay, so I can afford shiny gadgets still :P

<edit>
I would also add that installing office 2010 on windows involves a serial key and online activation.

Installing Office 2008 on mac is "do not make illegal copies of this disc".

Dogmantra

2011-09-29, 06:58 AM

I am using that apple wireless keyboard and I generally have no problems with it (save for F-numbered shortcuts). I rarely ever used the numpad, so it is no real loss, and the shortened keyboard helps when you are trying to use a trackpad alongside it.
Well, I'm sure if you're used to it, it's fine, but I taught myself to type (and unfortunately not "properly") on what I'd call a "proper" keyboard, the type that all desktops used to have, with the nice clunky keys. Laptop style keyboards just don't give enough feedback for me to type as quickly as I can on a "proper" one. I understand it's personal preference, so I don't really know why there's not some sort of choice. I just checked Apple's site and they certainly have lots of choices for different keyboards when ordering an iMac, but none of them involve classic style keys. It's not so much that it's the standard, I can understand that with laptops becoming the prevalent type of computer that people would want what they're used to without having to jump through too many hoops, but for those of us who spent way too much time learning how to type with their eyes closed, it's rather irritating to have to go somewhere else to some other company. It's certainly a mark against the "convenience" aspect of them in my eyes.

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-29, 06:59 AM

Same, Windows desktop +macbook.

What sold me was that I pitted my £2,000 gaming rig vs my £1,000 mac at booting up.

Switch PC on
Switch macbook on

Macbook booted and ready to use
PC switches to "windows logo loading screen thing"

This "Instant On" thing is one thing I'll never understand. Yes, windows takes longer to boot. Still does in 7. It has however never been a priority for me.

Trog

2011-09-29, 07:21 AM

may i ask something?

what actually makes "Macs better for art/video editing" because i honestly can't think of a single reason, other than that artists like the look/feel of Macs.
*pushes glasses up with finger* Why I'm glad you asked that.

*ahem*

Going all the way back to 1984 and the original Macintosh computer and its original desktop-type OS you can see where mac put the visual aspect of computers front and center. Software developers that wanted to concentrate on graphics flocked to the interface. With visual software came typesetting programs and layout programs. Many printers got macs to take advantage of the time savings. And thus many designers who worked with printers did too.

Fast forward ten years and art departments everywhere had been running on primarily macs for the better part of a decade. Colleges taught graphics on macs because the workforce used them. This advantage brought some innovations to the mac OS in regards to color calibration furthering its lead for a very short time.

Nowadays most of the software for producing stuff visually (Adobe products come readily to mind since they are the very highest end of these products) is available on both Mac and Windows platforms and really there isn't much difference. Many companies, realizing that there was little difference have begun to switch over their departments to PCs because of the savings. But many keep the Mac because it has been all about the visuals and has been on the forefront of design for their products which always look shiny. Visual people such as graphic artists are drawn to that. As are many others.

tl;dr? Macs were grandfathered in.

Trog

P.S. Can't speak for video purposes - I don't work in video.

Archonic Energy

2011-09-29, 07:47 AM

<edit>
I would also add that installing office 2010 on windows involves a serial key and online activation.

Installing Office 2008 on mac is "do not make illegal copies of this disc".

*sigh*
at least pit Office 2008 Mac against Office from 2008 ... which would be office 2007 or office 2011Mac Vs 2010PC

though i think there were still serial numbers but no online activation... though i could be wrong... anyone?

EDIT:
thanks Trog. :smallamused:

Runestar

2011-09-29, 08:13 AM

You could download Iworks at a 1/3 of the cost of office, though it does have some compatibility issues, and hasn't been updated in years.

Well, I'm sure if you're used to it, it's fine, but I taught myself to type (and unfortunately not "properly") on what I'd call a "proper" keyboard, the type that all desktops used to have, with the nice clunky keys. Laptop style keyboards just don't give enough feedback for me to type as quickly as I can on a "proper" one.

I have been using a "traditional" desktop keyboard for over 15 years now, and I didn't really have any issues getting used to the new laptop style keyboard. It is actually my rubber keyboard cover that is affecting my typing experience than anything else, and my still not getting used to some of the shortcuts (delete is fn+backspace, and some core windows shortcuts require that I press 3 keys simultaneously). :smalltongue:

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-29, 08:17 AM

You could download Iworks at a 1/3 of the cost of office, though it does have some compatibility issues, and hasn't been updated in years.

Do OpenOffice work on Mac?

shawnhcorey

2011-09-29, 08:37 AM

Do OpenOffice work on Mac?

Yes but use LibreOffice (https://www.libreoffice.org/); it's faster and cleaner (has fewer bugs).

Speaking of faster, I run Linux (Xubuntu to be exact) and at night I hibernate the computer (copy the RAM to disk) and turn everything off, computer, monitor, modem. In the morning, when I re-power and restart, my computer has reloaded all my running apps and is ready to work before the modem has completely booted.

And updates are checked daily, not just the OS but all my installed apps. And the only time I have to reboot is when I get an update for the OS (about 4 times a year). The reboot takes about 20 seconds to shutdown and 35 seconds to boot.

bluewind95

2011-09-29, 08:39 AM

See, that's a slightly different argument and one I can definitely accept. In the very specific instance of using a laptop without facility for an external mouse and the user much, much, much preferring to have two physical buttons, then the design can be a bit of a drawback. I would suggest giving the multi touch gesture for the second button a try though (I mean, not just a quick test, but enough to get used to it). It's really simple, natural, and hardly all that different from using the second button on a mouse. Especially as you already have one finger on the touchpad just to move the cursor.

I dunno. I've always had the complaint that there's not a second button and I've always meant the physical button. The functionality has not been my complaint.

And natural as though gestures may be, I have never really been a gestures kind of person. In tablets and PDAs and whatnot, I've disabled any gesture that it's possible to disable because it just doesn't sit well with me. For mouse buttons, I need that physical tactile feedback of feeling a mouse button. I can't even stand the virtual scroll bar on my touchpad, and I've used this computer for well over a year. The instant I find out how to disable it, I will. (I think I'm lacking a proper driver, but since I've been ill, I haven't bothered to change it. I just don't use the virtual scrolling and get really annoyed when I accidentally do. Thankfully small hands means it's relatively rare).

If, after years of being introduced to gestures, I still can't be comfortable with them, I really don't think using a gesture for a second button will really make me very happy. In fact, I've considered buying a mac to wipe that OS from it and use Windows or Linux(I do like their screens). But the lack of a physical button has always been a major deal-breaker.

There's a setting to make it always take up all of the screen horizontally, too.

Really? That I wasn't shown. That makes it a little better. Can you also remove all the quick-launch icons from it and still keep the programs one click(and a few key-strokes, if you're lazy) away? And also the icons all having nice borders and the window title in the dock?

I have. Buy at the right time and they can be cheaper than Dell.

Huh. Well, maybe that happens in countries more civilized than Mexico? Or maybe just for very short amounts of time? I dunno.

From what I've seen, I don't believe that this is the case. There are far less viruses that can infect Macs, but I don't believe that the company itself is saying that their operating system cannot get infected.

EDIT: Ninja'd by someone with proof that they don't.
Well, that's good to know. Not as unethical a company as I thought, then. They really should stress that their salespeople don't keep saying that, though, because they ARE. And for people who know that it's not true, it really, really hurts their rep.

A lot of Adobe's software such as Illustrator and Photoshop are *rumoured* to run more smoothly on a Mac, due to a better job workflow.
A friend of mine, a graphic designer, told me the exact opposite. She'll take the Windows PC over the Mac PC anyday.

3) I don't have to install an array of resource-hogging programs designed to keep my comp running in tip top condition. Before, I had CC-Cleaner, advancesystemcare, comodo, AVG and malwarebytes; running them ever so often was time-consuming.

... I really ought to install an antivirus on this thing. Being careful and disabling scripts isn't the best protection ever. I just have HijackThis for the case I actually need to delete something. I mean, my computer DOES run in top shape, but still. It's not the wisest thing to have no antivirus.

They spend more time writing code and less time waiting for this week's MS updates to finish rebooting. They're too busy being productive to play junior sysadmin for a couple hours each day just to keep the system running.

The system runs JUST fine if you download the system updates later or if you download them and install them and just don't restart. Then at the end of the day, when you shut down the computer anyways, the updates do all that stuff they wanted you to reboot the computer for. And then when you start it up again, it starts up like it normally does (or maybe takes, what, a few minutes to configure?). I don't really understand how they ever took HOURS a day to deal with updates. I never have. I take a few minutes a month to deal with them.

Lord Seth

2011-09-29, 10:01 AM

what actually makes "Macs better for art/video editing" because i honestly can't think of a single reason, other than that artists like the look/feel of Macs. Final Cut Studio. On the audio front, I've heard good things about Logic Studio also.

Premier

2011-09-29, 10:07 AM

Shocking, I know. But both have their uses. As others said, Windows is the best for gaming, and Macs are good for video editing,

I can't comment on video editing specifically, but I do know a number of graphical designers, typographers and the like, and the prevailing opinion in such professional circles seems to be that while the Mac WAS the computer of choice 5-10 years ago, it's no longer the case because whatever they can do on it they can also do on the PC just as easily and with the same quality.

lesser_minion

2011-09-29, 11:20 AM

And updates are checked daily, not just the OS but all my installed apps. And the only time I have to reboot is when I get an update for the OS (about 4 times a year). The reboot takes about 20 seconds to shutdown and 35 seconds to boot.

No operating system is perfect, but the idea that the state of affairs with regards to updates is somehow better on Linux is a myth.

If a binary that is currently in use receives an update, the outdated version will remain in use. Linux systems do not in fact have access to any magical pixie dust to sprinkle on this problem -- they just ignore it.

If something isn't running, then it doesn't matter when it gets updated as long as it's before it's next used. If something is running, it can't be updated because of (1). Ergo, no update carries any immediate benefit.

If the user is trying to get things done, it's not a good idea to perform housekeeping, particularly when it's useless because of (1) and (2).

Applying updates during a shutdown completely bypasses (1), and you also don't have to worry as much about impeding the user from getting things done.

Your secondary operating system will always seem like it needs more updates -- partly because you have to slog through a whole backlog of updates each time you boot into it, and partly because those updates will take up a greater fraction of your time.

Windows does ask you to reboot more often than it strictly has to. However, rebooting always gets the job done. Trying to carry on without a reboot doesn't. As a result, if you never switch off a Windows box, you won't be any worse off than under Linux.

As for software repositories, yes, they are an advantage. They don't, however, help with 'everything' -- only with the software that was published through the repository. And it's worth noting that you can easily get software for Windows to cover all of the important bases without ending up with anything that doesn't receive automatic updates.

shawnhcorey

2011-09-29, 11:28 AM

If a binary that is currently in use receives an update, the outdated version will remain in use. Linux systems do not in fact have access to any magical pixie dust to sprinkle on this problem -- they just ignore it.

The same for Windows and Mac. No OS has magic pixie dust.

lesser_minion

2011-09-29, 11:41 AM

The same for Windows and Mac. No OS has magic pixie dust.

I didn't say that any OS did. The point I'm trying to make is that Linux is no better at this than not-Linux, not that any OS is teh uber.

drakir_nosslin

2011-09-29, 11:52 AM

Personally I use MacBook Pro for my 'standard' laptop, that's the one that I use for work, mail, surfing etc. It's lighter, the keyboard/touchpad is vastly superior to the ones on my windows laptop and it has a much better battery.
On it I have VirtualBox and a light XP install for those occasions when I need windows to run something and I don't want to use my other laptop.
That's my gaming PC with Win7, it's big, heavy, can't run for long without a power cord, but has better hardware and I can install and run almost every game that is released. Not that I use it that much any more, I've cut down on gaming a lot the last few months.
And finally I got my server, a big black box that humms silently in a wardrobe. For that I use a build called FreeNas (Unix based) that has a wonderful web-based GUI that which makes it easily accesible and configured from every other computer and tablet/phone in the household. Very efficient.

Anyway, I like Mac, because as many already have pointed out it's easy to use, reliable, has a very good GUI and support. Windows on the other hand is highly customizable and I can find programs for almost anything. And finally Unix systems are just plain fun to work with.
That's basically it, they all have their advantages and disadvantages but I'll probably stick to Mac next time I buy a new laptop.

Jimorian

2011-09-29, 12:20 PM

Final Cut Studio. On the audio front, I've heard good things about Logic Studio also.

Final Cut Studio is awesome, I'm Final Cut 7 certified, and have taken a class on DVD Studio Pro so I can replicate just about anything you'd find on a Hollywood movie DVD. But Apple has seriously cut its own throat with Final Cut X. Most video professionals are flat out refusing to use it and are either switching to Adobe Premiere, or if they're really high end, just going with AVID.

I just had the decision of what to work with decided for me, since I just won (last night!) the complete Adobe Production Premium Suite (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/production.html) at a raffle at the local video pro meeting. :smalleek:

Until now, I've been limping along at home with a middle-weight shareware editing program on my laptop at home, with occasional use of the state-of-the-art Apple computers and software at school. Now I just need to get a computer that can run it, though now that I don't have to worry about the software side of the budget, I can get something with more vroom than I had originally hoped for (I've been looking into buying this suite and a computer for a couple months now).

OracleofWuffing

2011-09-29, 12:39 PM

On the topic of "Chiclet" style keyboards for desktops, the reason why people are switching to that style is because adding the space between all those buttons is supposed to force you to spread your fingers out more, making you more comfortable and the keyboard safer to work with for slightly longer periods of time. Additionally, smaller keys means less surface area to collect dust, and a smaller distance between the keys' "rest" and "pressed" position, leading to potentially faster typing. It's not so much corporate standard, but ergonomics leaning in on things and saying, "Hey, if you do this... It'll be healthier and more productive," which is why other companies are doing it, too (and there's probably something about how it costs less for them).

That said, yeah, I miss my old PS/2 split keyboard with the clunky buttons, built-in palmrest, and huge desk footprint, health be damned. :smallannoyed:

Talya

2011-09-29, 01:02 PM

On the topic of "Chiclet" style keyboards for desktops,

My Asus G73 has a backlit chiclet style keyboard, so this is not a Mac vs. PC argument.

shawnhcorey

2011-09-29, 01:08 PM

The point I'm trying to make is that Linux is no better at this than not-Linux, not that any OS is teh uber.

Well, you're not doing a good job. You make it sound like Linux is somehow deficient for not being able to do what other OSes can't.

In my opinion, Linux is the better choice because:

far less malware
superior-quality software
easier maintenance

OracleofWuffing

2011-09-29, 01:17 PM

My Asus G73 has a backlit chiclet style keyboard, so this is not a Mac vs. PC argument.
Oh, agreed- that's why I said that other people are doing it, too- just that it was brought up earlier, framed as a Mac thing. The chiclet concept itself actually is older than most would think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TRS-80_MC-10_Microcomputer.jpg), too.

Lord Seth

2011-09-29, 02:16 PM

Final Cut Studio is awesome, I'm Final Cut 7 certified, and have taken a class on DVD Studio Pro so I can replicate just about anything you'd find on a Hollywood movie DVD. But Apple has seriously cut its own throat with Final Cut X. Most video professionals are flat out refusing to use it and are either switching to Adobe Premiere, or if they're really high end, just going with AVID.Yeah, I've heard less-than-positive things about Final Cut Pro X, though I haven't used it so I can't really say anything for sure (but I doubt Adobe offering a 50% discount on Production Premium or Premiere Pro if you're moving from Final Cut or Avid is a coincidence). But from what I've heard, it sounds like they did to it what they did to iMovie and QuickTime: Take a good video program that's been considered good for years, then completely change it into an inferior version for no real reason. Granted, doing a major changeover worked for them with Mac OS X, but it was a legitimate improvement and kept the same overall interface. You can go from Mac OS 7 to Mac OS X fairly quickly and easily because, added features (note that: added features) aside, it works very similarly. iMovie HD to iMovie '08? Heck no. A real shame, because Final Cut Studio was a great reason to own a Mac...

Still, that doesn't diminish the fact Final Cut Studio is still good, and as I've got it it's not really of any concern to me now, though maybe a year or two down the line I might consider getting a different program. A shame the aforementioned Adobe promotion ends at the end of October...though I do already have Production Premium, it's just that it's CS4.

Until now, I've been limping along at home with a middle-weight shareware editing program on my laptop at home, with occasional use of the state-of-the-art Apple computers and software at school.Hrm, out of curiosity, what's this "middle-weight shareware editing program"?

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-29, 02:16 PM

My Asus G73 has a backlit chiclet style keyboard, so this is not a Mac vs. PC argument.

But I suspect that you, just like me, lacks a numlock? This ASUS is the first PC I have ever seen (with a numpad) that lacks one.

lesser_minion

2011-09-29, 02:35 PM

Well, you're not doing a good job. You make it sound like Linux is somehow deficient for not being able to do what other OSes can't.

Linux suffers from the same problem that Windows deals with by instructing the user to reboot. It does nothing about it, even when this poses a security risk.

With that in mind, is it reasonable to declare "fewer reboots" to be a selling point of Linux?

Rawhide

2011-09-29, 05:30 PM

Well, you're not doing a good job. You make it sound like Linux is somehow deficient for not being able to do what other OSes can't.

He never said that, nor can his comment be construed in that way.

In my opinion, Linux is the better choice because:
far less malware
Based on the fact that there are less people using it. There's also far less malware for Macs. Either we include this argument and accept that Macs are better because they have far less malware for the same reason, or we do what we've already done and invalidate this as a reason.

superior-quality software
I dispute this. Some software sometimes can be higher quality. But my experience in software that I need, for consumer level and, much more importantly, for business level service, has been unreliable at best.

easier maintenance

I dispute this. For someone that has used Windows, Macintosh and Linux based PCs and servers, Linux servers and desktops have definitely not proven themselves to have easier maintenance.

---

It should be noted that I have nothing against Linux or Windows, I'm just trying to be one of the voices of reason in this argument, which may make some of my comments seem more negative as I refute claims.

Personally I use MacBook Pro for my 'standard' laptop, that's the one that I use for work, mail, surfing etc. It's lighter, the keyboard/touchpad is vastly superior to the ones on my windows laptop and it has a much better battery.

Oh, this is another thing, battery life. Apple laptops often have better battery life. They don't have the monopoly on this, but they are usually ranked amongst the highest.

Part of this comes from higher quality batteries and part of this comes from better design, but, most importantly, part of this comes from using other component parts that are designed for lower power consumption. Laptopisation is the part about each individual component that adds the most cost, getting the same performance out of a smaller and much more energy efficient part.

You can't really compare an Apple laptop to a lot of other laptops out there directly. Many of the other companies will make compromises on the components for price, including compromises that will reduce battery life. Many will use desktop or otherwise inferior (for laptop use) parts, which is why battery life must be included in your decision to purchase. Don't even get me started on desktop replacement laptops. I have a desktop replacement laptop (Alienware from the Dell factory outlet, very good deal) and, purely on a grunt per dollar basis, it would be a much better deal than the type of laptop Apple produces, but it has approximately 30 minutes of battery life. I knew this when I purchased it, it was right for my requirements, but if I wanted something more portable and/or something that would last me for ages without having to plug the cord in, I'd make a different decision.

---

Something else that people keep failing to take into consideration with these comparisons... You can't compare a miniaturised desktop to a full sized desktop/tower. The miniaturisation process will make the computer more expensive overall. Part of what you're paying for there is convenience (i.e. smaller size, etc.).

I dunno. I've always had the complaint that there's not a second button and I've always meant the physical button. The functionality has not been my complaint.

And natural as though gestures may be, I have never really been a gestures kind of person. In tablets and PDAs and whatnot, I've disabled any gesture that it's possible to disable because it just doesn't sit well with me. For mouse buttons, I need that physical tactile feedback of feeling a mouse button. I can't even stand the virtual scroll bar on my touchpad, and I've used this computer for well over a year. The instant I find out how to disable it, I will. (I think I'm lacking a proper driver, but since I've been ill, I haven't bothered to change it. I just don't use the virtual scrolling and get really annoyed when I accidentally do. Thankfully small hands means it's relatively rare).

If, after years of being introduced to gestures, I still can't be comfortable with them, I really don't think using a gesture for a second button will really make me very happy. In fact, I've considered buying a mac to wipe that OS from it and use Windows or Linux(I do like their screens). But the lack of a physical button has always been a major deal-breaker.

I too disable the side scroll sections, I hate them. Absolutely hate them. Calling it a "gesture" is a bit of a misnomer. It's not really a gesture, it's a tap. When I'm forced to use a touchpad, I use the tap to left click option, I find it better than the button. The only difference to a basic tap is that you have one finger on the touchpad already. No fingers + tap = left click, one finger + tap = right click.

Really? That I wasn't shown. That makes it a little better. Can you also remove all the quick-launch icons from it and still keep the programs one click(and a few key-strokes, if you're lazy) away? And also the icons all having nice borders and the window title in the dock?

I don't know, I don't have a Mac in front of me and I haven't played around with it that much. I would guess yes. If not, there are (free) applications out there that can give you more customisation.

Runestar

2011-09-29, 06:12 PM

Trog

2011-09-29, 06:58 PM

It has always been my understanding that Macs can have viruses, just that those tend to stay dormant as they are not designed on run on OSX. However, there is still the risk that they can be sent to other windows PCs.

Am I mistaken? :smallconfused:

Mac can have viruses, yes. And if a mac somehow contracts a PC virus (i.e. a virus file that, if copied onto a PC hard drive, will activate and do it's usual evil business on the PC) it obviously will not run nor do anything on the mac because it lacks the files and components that the virus is designed to modify. It may also not copy itself though I imagine all this varies depending on the specific nature of the virus in question.

There *are* mac-specific viruses but they are few and far between, thankfully. For example, I have gotten one single virus on a mac I worked on in the past 17 years. It was the autostart worm some 13-14 years ago. This was before the development of OSX (or at least before we had it installed I think). Never had a single one before or since and haven't had antivirus software installed on any Mac I've worked with since OSX came out. No other mac viruses have been spotted by me personally, yet. Not to say there isn't some out there somewhere I would imagine.

My PCs on the other hand have gotten several which are usually handily caught by even the most rudimentary antivirus programs and done away with so there's been little threat there so far. I did get a rather nasty virus of some sort in the past few months on my kids' Win7 laptop which forced me to do a wipe and reinstall the OS though. Going through that wiping and reinstalling process reinforced my preference for the Mac OS.

Apple has been doing some rather interesting things with the Mac OS as of late. The latest version is supposedly supposed to do away with the need to hit "save" altogether, automatically saving each time you do anything and storing the different saved versions in a timeline view which you can access and copy and paste in-between if you need to. Has anyone tried this feature out yet? I'm rather curious how well that works.

shawnhcorey

2011-09-29, 07:15 PM

Knaight

2011-09-29, 07:22 PM

Oh, this is another thing, battery life. Apple laptops often have better battery life. They don't have the monopoly on this, but they are usually ranked amongst the highest.

Asus pretty consistently gets high results here too. And as long as you aren't using a Lenovo netbook*, you probably have enough. Onto other topics.

Virii: A decent antivirus and safe browsing pretty much render these a non issue, regardless of system. If you are using Linux, you don't even need antivirus, at least not yet. If you absolutely must download anime and pornography, change your mouse appearance periodically to cute kittens, and add toolbars to AOL repeatedly, then I suppose Linux is your best bet. On the other hand, if you do all those things, your computer literacy is probably too low to actually install Linux.

UI: Entirely subjective. I'll say this though: the multi touch pad on the Macbook is incredibly useful. Clicking and right clicking is faster than with most touch pads, scrolling far faster than almost all of them, sideways scrolling actually an option, page down and page up are easily done with the mouse, and you can make a tiny gesture and get all open windows to appear.

Programs: Both Mac and Windows cover basically everything. Windows has more in the way of CAD programs, and Macintosh seems to have more in the way of dedicated pixel art. Then there are the games. Independent titles seem to go to Mac, Windows, Linux, and sometimes a whole host of very minor OSs consistently. The larger releases are often Windows exclusive.

My Opinion: I favor Mac UI in general, and between the nice used market locally (college students majoring in art, mostly) and the sheer extent to which I don't care about most video games, the UI is enough for me to use a Mac. Particularly because of what the local windows used market looks like (Older people, most of whom have never heard the term antivirus in their life. I can deal with the virii I'm likely to pick up, but the messes these people consistently do are way past the point where I want to try and fix everything, and probably past the point where I can, even with the wonderful virus help tool attached to the internet.

Peripherals: Apple mice and keyboards suck. Fortunately, you can just plug in any USB mouse or keyboard, and the laptops actually work well enough. Speakers also suck, which is only really relevant for laptops, as desktops basically require speakers regardless. The Macbook camera and microphone is surprisingly good, and presumably the Macbook pro is better. I've never used it, so I wouldn't know.

*Which seem to hover around the two hour range. Yes, two. The number between one and three.

Rawhide

2011-09-29, 07:39 PM

Asus pretty consistently gets high results here too. And as long as you aren't using a Lenovo netbook*, you probably have enough. Onto other topics.

Again, I'm not claiming they have the monopoly. And I'm definitely not claiming that all manufacturer's claims can be believed, though Apple has been shown to be far more reliable than most with its claims, but Apple claims that its laptops have "up to 7 hrs wireless web", which is pretty darn good, especially when you consider what this test is:

"Apple is using a new, more rigorous battery test that measures the results you can expect in the real world — like surfing your favorite sites in a coffee shop or catching up on the latest web videos. Even using this new test, MacBook Pro delivers amazing battery life. For your real life."

(FYI - 802.11 based wireless likes to chew your battery like there's no tomorrow. I've got a Nokia mobile phone that will last over a week on 3G, but less than a day with wireless switched on. Videos with sound also like to chew up your battery.)

valadil

2011-09-29, 07:41 PM

Sorry, this is just utter FUD. MS release major tranches of updates once a month (the second Tuesday, so-called "patch Tuesday") unless something really critical comes up, which is fairly rare. The only updates you'll usually see outside that window are things like Windows Defender updates, which most certainly don't take two hours to install!

Sorry, I didn't explain myself right. I didn't mean that windows updates were the only thing causing interruptions. There's always something getting in the way of things working right though. Updates were just the first thing that sprang to mind.

The system runs JUST fine if you download the system updates later or if you download them and install them and just don't restart. Then at the end of the day, when you shut down the computer anyways, the updates do all that stuff they wanted you to reboot the computer for. And then when you start it up again, it starts up like it normally does (or maybe takes, what, a few minutes to configure?). I don't really understand how they ever took HOURS a day to deal with updates. I never have. I take a few minutes a month to deal with them.

That hasn't been my experience with Windows 7 at all. I have 4 hard drives. Whenever I boot up, there's a good chance any one of them (aside from the OS disk) won't mount. It just doesn't show up in My Computer.

I have yet to get my DVD burner to work at all.

Every other time I boot up, explorer crashes.

I'll concede that I see more updates than most people because I only boot up Windows once a month or so. However, Windows doesn't remember my setting to download the updates and install them at my choosing. It interrupts whatever I'm doing with a reboot.

Could I fix all this? Probably. But dealing with this sort of thing is why I don't find Windows to be as productive as other OSes. I'd rather have a system that is stable and doesn't demand attention in the middle of my work day.

No operating system is perfect, but the idea that the state of affairs with regards to updates is somehow better on Linux is a myth.

[list=1] If a binary that is currently in use receives an update, the outdated version will remain in use. Linux systems do not in fact have access to any magical pixie dust to sprinkle on this problem -- they just ignore it.

Have you looked into ksplice? It lets you swap out a running linux kernel without rebooting the system. I've never used it, because reboots don't bother me that much, but some of my sysadmin friends are big fans.

bluewind95

2011-09-29, 09:30 PM

That hasn't been my experience with Windows 7 at all. I have 4 hard drives. Whenever I boot up, there's a good chance any one of them (aside from the OS disk) won't mount. It just doesn't show up in My Computer.

Don't blame Windows for that one. :smalltongue:

thorgrim29

2011-09-29, 09:36 PM

Basically, Macs are at least as good as their competitors (depending on personal opinion mostly), and cost way too much.

Knaight

2011-09-29, 10:38 PM

Basically, Macs are at least as good as their competitors (depending on personal opinion mostly), and cost way too much.

Pretty much. Though if you use the magic of craigslist and similar, the price drops down to reasonable. There is also a small exception in the Mac Mini, which is quite reasonably priced, particularly when you consider the portability of it.

Jimorian

2011-09-29, 11:28 PM

Hrm, out of curiosity, what's this "middle-weight shareware editing program"?

MAGIX Movie Edit Pro (http://www.magix.com/us/movie-edit-pro/). $60 or $100 US depending on version, I have the plus (though it's version 15, not the new 17). It's quite a good program, and I've used it for stuff I've put on television. It has a lot of features I wasn't aware existed until I took some Final Cut classes then realized what some of the features actually did! It's particularly good at sound processing with tools that don't require deep audio tech understanding.

I'd highly recommend it for anybody who wants a nearly full-featured program on PC that doesn't want to spend as much time and money to get and learn Premiere.

Phishfood

2011-09-30, 05:08 AM

*sigh*
at least pit Office 2008 Mac against Office from 2008 ... which would be office 2007 or office 2011Mac Vs 2010PC

though i think there were still serial numbers but no online activation... though i could be wrong... anyone?

EDIT:
thanks Trog. :smallamused:

Thats what I get for assuming that microsoft sorted newest products on top. :smallamused:

Lets have a look at 2011.

Vaynor

2011-09-30, 05:16 AM

Phishfood

2011-09-30, 05:53 AM

Just chucking this one out there.

I have 2 PCs and my mac laptop in here. Had a set of 5 professionally pressed discs that my PCs refused to read so I had to transfer them to the network with my mac.

Just putting that one out there, since it just wasted 30 minutes of my time messing.

Ichneumon

2011-09-30, 06:20 AM

Personally, I prefer Apple, since I find the operating system more user friendly and although Apple's products are expensive, I feel their quality makes it worth the money.

Especially when you look at more recent Apple products, like the iPad or the Macbook Air, similar products from other companies often cost roughly the same.

The Giant

2011-09-30, 09:07 PM

Every The Order of the Stick has been created on a Mac. They're the only computers I know how to use.

When I first learned anything about image editing back at Pratt circa 1994, Macs were so far ahead of PCs in terms of what could be done with art that the computer lab didn't even have a single PC, just rows and rows of Macs. Adobe software didn't even exist for PCs yet. As I worked in the graphic design industry through the late 90's and early 2000's, every company I worked for (or even just interviewed at) was Mac-based. I literally didn't know anything about a PC and it never hurt me once, professionally. These days, PCs have more or less caught up with Macs in that regard, but I'm not learning a new system now if I don't have to.

And that right there is half or more of the reason why people like Macs: Because they don't care about the things that people who like PCs better care about. Macs can't be modified? So what? I wouldn't even know why I would need to modify my Mac, it works fine as-is. It's too expensive? Eh, I bought this Mac back in 2005, that money is long gone and I've probably earned it back in productivity because I didn't have to learn how everything works again. Plus, I've been upgrading the Adobe software for 15+ years for a fraction of their new-version price, so switching to PC would require thousands of dollars of software replacement. The reason PC people don't understand Mac people is because they cannot imagine not giving a crap about what the hardware can do, the way I don't. Does it work when I turn it on? Yes? Then I'm done worrying about computers until the next time I need to buy one.

So even if you showed me a PC that was faster, cheaper, more stable, had more ability to be customized or modified, and was better in every single way that could be measured, I still wouldn't switch. Literally the only thing that could happen that would make me try a PC would be for Apple to cease to exist, and then I would still hang on to my Macs for as many years as I could keep them working. Because purchasing decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and I have better things to do with my time then learn how to modify PCs.

Also, my Cinema Display is the best screen I have ever used or watched TV on, by a mile.

So, the answer to the initial question is: A lot of people use Macs because they've always used Macs, dating back to the time when there were more substantial differences between the two platforms.

Nix Nihila

2011-09-30, 11:25 PM

So, the answer to the initial question is: A lot of people use Macs because they've always used Macs, dating back to the time when there were more substantial differences between the two platforms.

Yeah, that pretty much describes me. Although I'm young enough that I got used to macs because my parents preferred them rather than because of work. My first computer (back in 1999, I think) was one of those really old iMacs. I've had one PC, which I mainly used for gaming, but I was used to macs, so when that died I never thought to get another PC.

The only thing that ever irritates me is when I want to play a game that's PC only, but I'm not a big gamer, so that doesn't happen too often. The only games I ever play anymore are League of Legends and Starcraft 2, and those both work just fine on a mac.

bluewind95

2011-10-01, 12:00 AM

So, the answer to the initial question is: A lot of people use Macs because they've always used Macs, dating back to the time when there were more substantial differences between the two platforms.

I guess this applies to any OS you use. I've used Windows since it started, and used DOS before that. I've never been great with changes. It took me a long while to get used to Windows when it first came out and I constantly did stuff on DOS... until the next Windows came out and took that from me. That was a nasty thing to get used to. But I was still young, so I managed to get used to that new paradigm. But my way of relating to computers kind of evolved around this paradigm and that's what I'm most comfortable with (... those mac screens, though... shame about the buttons). And as long as it does what I need to get done and I'm comfortable with it, I'm not likely to change.

Therefore, I prefer Windows, though I will accept that Mac isn't bad and has its own good things. I just like Windows better. A matter of preference. I don't think either side should go around insulting the other. Both are good OSes. They're just different and if we have choices, we should be able to make them (I'm glad Windows isn't the ONLY OS available and viable, really!)

factotum

2011-10-01, 02:06 AM

These days, PCs have more or less caught up with Macs in that regard, but I'm not learning a new system now if I don't have to.

Surely you had to learn a new system when the big switch from System 9 to OS X occurred?

Rawhide

2011-10-01, 02:32 AM

Surely you had to learn a new system when the big switch from System 9 to OS X occurred?

The transition to OSX was handled rather well.

Jimorian

2011-10-01, 02:41 AM

My dad is one of those "video professionals" and he, along with the rest of his company, uses almost exclusively Macs and Final Cut Pro. He edits movie trailers and t.v. spots for a movie trailer company, if anyone's interested.

That's the point I forgot to make. The working pros are sticking with Final Cut Pro 7 rather than "upgrading" to X. If for some reason in the future, 7 no longer does what they need, then they're likely to go to another system unless Apple goes back to making a product they can use again. And switching to Premiere for editing doesn't necessarily mean they're switching to PC, since it also runs on Apple computers (and a lot of the underlying processing in Premiere happens with Apple codecs).

Knaight

2011-10-01, 03:45 AM

Surely you had to learn a new system when the big switch from System 9 to OS X occurred?

It was actually a remarkably small switch, all things considered. There's a lot OS X does that System 9 didn't do, but you can essentially treat OS X like System 9 and get along fine. The new stuff will just gradually come to you, and the existence of Classic Mode in early OS X prevented having issues with programs, by the time Classic Mode was dropped most System 9 programs were obsolete.

The Giant

2011-10-01, 05:37 AM

Surely you had to learn a new system when the big switch from System 9 to OS X occurred?

I don't remember it being much of an issue beyond a bunch of extra features, and the fact that I had to run a lot of programs in Classic until they were updated. Not nearly the difference between learning Mac and PC. Honestly, I still don't use something like half of the features in OS X, just because they don't matter to me.

And I would point out that when that switchover happened, I was still employed full-time in an all-Mac studio, so I had to learn it whether I liked it or not (and was paid for any time spent doing so).

factotum

2011-10-01, 12:25 PM

Knaight

2011-10-01, 11:34 PM

OK, so long as there's an explanation for it. :smallbiggrin: Since I was never a Mac user myself I didn't know that there wasn't such a huge jump between the two versions--I know they *looked* really different and had a completely different kernel, but beyond that, nothing.

Without Classic, there would have been. As is, the systems essentially had several years of overlap in which one has time to transition.

Phishfood

2011-10-02, 04:22 AM

factotum

2011-10-02, 11:33 AM

"Why spend £250k on a car when a £12k car gets you to work just as well?"

Actually, I would be first up in that thread asking that very question :smallwink:. And while we're about it, what is it with Rolex watches? :smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart

2011-10-02, 11:44 AM

I'm studying graphic design. The labs are stocked with Macs. The students, nearly without exception, own Macs. So when people start discussing the horrible issues they've had with Lion? That really means something. Meanwhile, W7 is chugging along wonderfully on my Tablet PC, which amusingly enough is not an option that you can get from Apple. I dimly recall something from Jobs saying that Apple will never make a pen input device, and seeing as how I'm not a fan of finger-painting or lugging around a Wacom everywhere...

Drascin

2011-10-02, 12:41 PM

Knaight

2011-10-02, 05:49 PM

"Why spend £250k on a car when a £12k car gets you to work just as well?"
Why pay £12k? That is still a lot, and a used car can be acquired for a quarter of that.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 01:51 AM

It really is a case of right tool for the job. My macbook beats any windows laptop I have ever seen on size, weight and battery life.

Ok it cost more. However I can't help but think if this were a thread about Fords vs Aston Martins the cost would be much less of an issue than it is when people go on pc vs mac.

"Why spend £250k on a car when a £12k car gets you to work just as well?"

I think the first part of your post is in conflict with the last part of your post.
The right tool for the job (aka going to work) would indeed be the £12k car. or the £1.2k car at that, if you don't insist on having a brand new one.

The point with Macs, these days, are that they really AREN't the "righ tool for the job" anymore, as we have discussed. Virtually all programs, or equivalents, exists for Windows 7, and you get it all for 65% - 70% of the price.

The only real edge Mac (some models only, of course) has at this point that isn't a matter of style or taste is ultra-portability and MAYBE battery life. Question is... is paying that much more worth 30 minutes battery time and a small decrease in weight? If you say yes, then by all means go for it! :smallsmile:

deuxhero

2011-10-03, 01:53 AM

Why pay £12k? That is still a lot, and a used car can be acquired for a quarter of that.

So in other words, build your own PC. :smallcool:

Phishfood

2011-10-03, 02:01 AM

I think the first part of your post is in conflict with the last part of your post.
The right tool for the job (aka going to work) would indeed be the £12k car. or the £1.2k car at that, if you don't insist on having a brand new one.

The point with Macs, these days, are that they really AREN't the "righ tool for the job" anymore, as we have discussed. Virtually all programs, or equivalents, exists for Windows 7, and you get it all for 65% - 70% of the price.

The only real edge Mac (some models only, of course) has at this point that isn't a matter of style or taste is ultra-portability and MAYBE battery life. Question is... is paying that much more worth 30 minutes battery time and a small decrease in weight? If you say yes, then by all means go for it! :smallsmile:

Thing is, I do. I've had the thing going for 6 hours watching DVDs without charging. It doesn't last so long playing Civ 5, but still. For just general stuff I can easily get the 8 hours they say it will last.

Like I said before, lacking dependents in any form I can spend all my income on shiny stuff to make me happy. So why not.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 02:14 AM

Thing is, I do. I've had the thing going for 6 hours watching DVDs without charging. It doesn't last so long playing Civ 5, but still. For just general stuff I can easily get the 8 hours they say it will last.

Like I said before, lacking dependents in any form I can spend all my income on shiny stuff to make me happy. So why not.

Last point first: Of course :smallsmile: but that's a slightly different discussion... Do I NEED a Bugatti? NO. Do I WANT one? HELL YES!

Anyway, yes that is quite impressive. Of course I have never tried that on any of our laptops since I watch all movies on my phone when I am out and about. Much more convenient size, there.

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 02:24 AM

The only real edge Mac (some models only, of course) has at this point that isn't a matter of style or taste is ultra-portability and MAYBE battery life. Question is... is paying that much more worth 30 minutes battery time and a small decrease in weight? If you say yes, then by all means go for it! :smallsmile:

You're really quite understating these differences, as well as leaving out quality control and user experience.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 03:24 AM

You're really quite understating these differences, as well as leaving out quality control and user experience.

User experience is very subjective.

Quality control... I have no personal experience with Macs, only with their other products, and my HTC seems to be just as good as my Iphone 3GS was. Of the Mac users I personally know, all that use both PCs and Macs say they have equal or less trouble with their PCs.

As for the rest, fair enough: If you value portability and battery life over everything else (that is, are you regularly working without access to anywhere to charge the battery) then again, sure, it might be worth it.

You will never be able to convince me that an iMac is worth the price difference though.

Knaight

2011-10-03, 06:34 AM

You will never be able to convince me that an iMac is worth the price difference though.

The iMac is basically the worst Mac, so that's reasonable. The desktop you want is the Mac Mini.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-03, 06:45 AM

Hello, all. I post this with the understanding that all "versus" threads are inherently intensive, but I hope that we can keep this civil. I see people using Macs in my university courses. My university Comp Sci course even. I really don't understand it. I don't at all claim to be well-versed in the workings and corporate policies of Microsoft, Apple, or their other companies. But I honestly have no clue why someone would choose to go with an Apple computer over any other, aside from perhaps ascetics.

Aright, let's compare them. First off, let's break the OS out from the hardware, since you can make a mac boot windows, or a non apple PC boot into OS X. Most people don't bother with this, but if you can follow step by step guides online, either is quite doable.

So, first off, OS comparison. The big factor here is that windows is more popular. This means more apps of all types. Note that "all types" includes viruses and malware. The less popular any given system is, the less they have of that. Note that even on mac, many hacks/viruses DO exist, so you still need to take basic precautions.

Mac-iphone has a few minor advantages for pretty intense users. Iphones/ipod touches work pretty slick on windows as well, though. Unless you're the sort of person who considers a compiler part of a normal computer setup, you'll never care.

Windows/windows 7 phones...ditto. Nobody much cares about windows phones, though.

Personally, I'd rather have the OS with more app/device driver options, viruses be damned. I've got a decent security setup anyhow, and would regardless.

Hardware...
Mac hardware isn't at all bad. I dislike certain models, such as the thin macbook(no cd drive on an expensive lappy is annoying for me. Also, one usb port, wtf? My netbook that cost 1/6th the price has three).

Still, your average mac basically is a PC with a nice package. Unfortunately, it also has a high markup. Expensive PCs exist too, but on a price/performance level, it's really hard to justify apple hardware. It's sort of like alienware. You could get machines with the exact same specs for much cheaper, but you're paying a premium for the label on the box.

IMO, it's damned hard to justify the hardware on any basis other than the status symbol on the case, but the OSes? Take whatever you prefer. I would agree that there used to be much more ingrained differences(I used OS 6 and 7.x pretty heavily, and this was the era with the greatest differences. The oldest apples actually used flavors of DOS), but that's mostly gone now.

You're really quite understating these differences, as well as leaving out quality control and user experience.

Honestly, I can get eight hours from my netbook when I'm hitting the battery hard as hell. Watching movies, etc It's also ultra-portable. It also cost me about $250 with windows 7 preloaded. They're likely cheaper now.

"User experience" is highly subjective. I prefer Windows 7 over OS X, but be aware that most settings on each are configurable, and a lot of what people like is purely what they've gotten used to, and thus claim is more "intuitive". Note that with quality control, apple isn't the top(though in laptops, they ARE pretty decent). It's really, really hard to get accurate numbers, thanks to basically every company defining service differently, but apple generally sits at a "moderately good" level, with some variation depending on who is doing the ranking.

Personally, I'm a fan of Dell's business support. If you're about paying money for a great experience, it's cash well spent. I've had people on-site within hours of an email, already carrying the parts.*

*Disclaimer: I've admined a variety of very expensive systems, so while my experience with computer support is extremely broad, some companies DO give better support to the guy with several million dollars in hardware than average.

bluewind95

2011-10-03, 07:33 AM

"User experience" is highly subjective. I prefer Windows 7 over OS X, but be aware that most settings on each are configurable, and a lot of what people like is purely what they've gotten used to, and thus claim is more "intuitive".

Eh, I've always thought that this claim of one OS being more intuitive than the other is highly flawed in the ordinary person (hence why I won't give it).

Unless you're some kind of psychologist making an assessment based on some real data, can you really claim that one OS is more intuitive than the other?

You can claim it's more intuitive for you, but not overall. Personally, I find Windows a lot more "intuitive" for me, as it is a lot more the way I expect to find options and whatnot. And yet look at the Giant's post and how easy he makes the Mac OS seem. It's not so easy for me, a Mac OS! Which is the more intuitive OS, really? Me, I'd just call them different and then say "Windows is a lot easier for my way of thinking".

Tyndmyr

2011-10-03, 07:40 AM

Eh, I've always thought that this claim of one OS being more intuitive than the other is highly flawed in the ordinary person (hence why I won't give it).

Unless you're some kind of psychologist making an assessment based on some real data, can you really claim that one OS is more intuitive than the other?

You can claim it's more intuitive for you, but not overall. Personally, I find Windows a lot more "intuitive" for me, as it is a lot more the way I expect to find options and whatnot. And yet look at the Giant's post and how easy he makes the Mac OS seem. It's not so easy for me, a Mac OS! Which is the more intuitive OS, really? Me, I'd just call them different and then say "Windows is a lot easier for my way of thinking".

Exactly. Yeah, new people seem to learn both systems in roughly the same time, in my experience. It's just that most people have little patience/desire to learn a new system.

Personally, I've been out of the apple world long enough that OS X is mostly unfamiliar to me at this point, and relearning it would be...annoying. But from the standpoint of a new user, that really doesn't matter much. Someone familiar with mac would no doubt feel exactly the same way about windows.

But, the good news is, your hardware no longer needs to match your OS. If you really want OS X, but want to save a few bucks, you can work up a PC that runs OS X fantastically. Or vice versa. So, I'd like to see more people evaluating the hardware separately from the software, since the old ties have really become a lot less serious.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 08:04 AM

I read somewhere that back in them olden days (Windows 3.11) Microsoft stole a lot of things from Apple. Nowadays (XP / Vista / 7) the "stealing" is about equal in both directions. Vista is a damn good OS, though too resource heavy before the service pack. 7 is great.

Personally, I've been out of the apple world long enough that OS X is mostly unfamiliar to me at this point, and relearning it would be...annoying. But from the standpoint of a new user, that really doesn't matter much. Someone familiar with mac would no doubt feel exactly the same way about windows.

This is also the curse of Linux. The most desktop friendly distributions, like SUSE, Ubuntu and Fedora really only suffer because of users used to Windows. My experience is that new users (that is, new to computers as such) has no more difficulty learning Ubuntu over Windows or MacOS.

Phishfood

2011-10-03, 08:08 AM

Personally, I'm a fan of Dell's business support. If you're about paying money for a great experience, it's cash well spent. I've had people on-site within hours of an email, already carrying the parts.*

*Disclaimer: I've admined a variety of very expensive systems, so while my experience with computer support is extremely broad, some companies DO give better support to the guy with several million dollars in hardware than average.

Yeah, we've been hitting dell heavily here because of the customer support. Mostly, we haven't needed it. Thats a big factor in their favour.

Comparison of support call with fujitsu vs dell.

Fujitsu:
"We have a dead hard drive. Can you replace it?"
"Ok, I need to confirm the hard drive is dead, can you double click on 'my computer'"
"The computer won't boot"
"Ok, try going to start..."
"The computer won't boot"
"What happens if you boot it in safe mode?"
*repeat for 2 hours*

Dell:
"We have a dead hard drive"
"We posted you a new one"

Anyhoo, thats all rather off topic. So off topic I forgot what I was going to say ON topic. Rats.

What I will say is that macs are definately not perfect. Example:
All the ports are on the left hand side. Being right handed like the majority of the population, I am going to want to plug in cables and drives with my right hand not my left.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 08:13 AM

Yeah, we've been hitting dell heavily here because of the customer support. Mostly, we haven't needed it. Thats a big factor in their favour.

Comparison of support call with fujitsu vs dell.

Fujitsu:
"We have a dead hard drive. Can you replace it?"
"Ok, I need to confirm the hard drive is dead, can you double click on 'my computer'"
"The computer won't boot"
"Ok, try going to start..."
"The computer won't boot"
"What happens if you boot it in safe mode?"
*repeat for 2 hours*

Dell:
"We have a dead hard drive"
"We posted you a new one".

Just want to throw ASUS customer support in here as well. My experience with them is somewhere between "Fantastic" and "Great".

Tyndmyr

2011-10-03, 08:51 AM

Yeah, Asus is pretty fantastic as well. My netbooks from them, and an ex-gf of mine had a gaming lappy from them that was extremely solid as well. I'd rank them as a great place to go for laptops/mobos.

Xuc Xac

2011-10-03, 09:28 AM

Eh, I've always thought that this claim of one OS being more intuitive than the other is highly flawed in the ordinary person (hence why I won't give it).

I stopped paying attention to people claiming one OS or another was "more intuitive" back in the days of floppy disks. I started out with PCs back when they were called "IBM compatibles". When I went to college and had to use Macs in the computer lab, I had this exchange:

Me: I don't need this file anymore. How do I delete it?
CompSci Lab Monitor/Helper Monkey: Just drag it into the trashcan. It's very intuitive.
Me: Ok. I'm done with my work. How do I get my disk back out? There's no eject button.
Helper Monkey: Just drag it into the trashcan!
Me: I want to get it back! I don't want to throw it out!
Helper Monkey: No, that's how you eject it.
Me: The trashcan isn't a place I normally put things that I want to keep. That's not "intuitive".

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 10:29 AM

User experience is very subjective.

"User experience" is highly subjective. I prefer Windows 7 over OS X, but be aware that most settings on each are configurable, and a lot of what people like is purely what they've gotten used to, and thus claim is more "intuitive". Note that with quality control, apple isn't the top(though in laptops, they ARE pretty decent). It's really, really hard to get accurate numbers, thanks to basically every company defining service differently, but apple generally sits at a "moderately good" level, with some variation depending on who is doing the ranking.

Personally, I'm a fan of Dell's business support. If you're about paying money for a great experience, it's cash well spent. I've had people on-site within hours of an email, already carrying the parts.*

*Disclaimer: I've admined a variety of very expensive systems, so while my experience with computer support is extremely broad, some companies DO give better support to the guy with several million dollars in hardware than average.

If you've been following this thread, you'll both see that I'm not talking about intuitiveness or just support.

Quality control... I have no personal experience with Macs, only with their other products, and my HTC seems to be just as good as my Iphone 3GS was. Of the Mac users I personally know, all that use both PCs and Macs say they have equal or less trouble with their PCs.

As I've covered in the thread, Apple selects higher grade equipment (even when the specifications are identical) from higher quality manufacturers and runs them through a higher quality control process. Sometimes, you'll also find server grade equipment in a desktop.

Honestly, I can get eight hours from my netbook when I'm hitting the battery hard as hell. Watching movies, etc It's also ultra-portable. It also cost me about $250 with windows 7 preloaded. They're likely cheaper now.

You can't compare a budget netbook to Apple's offerings like that directly. The hardware in the equivalently sized Macbook Air is far superior. It has an i5 or i7 processor, 2 or more GB of RAM, 64 or more GB of solid state storage, and many other features not included in a budget netbook.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-03, 11:01 AM

As I've covered in the thread, Apple selects higher grade equipment (even when the specifications are identical) from higher quality manufacturers and runs them through a higher quality control process. Sometimes, you'll also find server grade equipment in a desktop.

Just because it's a device that frequently ends up in servers doesn't mean it's a good choice for a desktop. Server stuff is mostly optimized for easy replacement and form factor.

Suggesting that this leads to a more reliable computer in the end is not terribly accurate.

You can't compare a budget netbook to Apple's offerings like that directly. The hardware in the equivalently sized Macbook Air is far superior. It has an i5 or i7 processor, 2 or more GB of RAM, 64 or more GB of solid state storage, and many other features not included in a budget netbook.

Sure I can. The question is "which better fills the niche?". I also use desktop replacement laptops. See, to replace my desktop, it must have features like a CD drive and plenty of USB ports(gotta have my mouse and keyboard, which are not in a set for fairly good reasons. USB drives are also a common thing.). I also frequently need to plug in monitors or network cables. The air does not do this. So, it's not a reasonable choice for that need for me.

And I really don't need an SSD in my video watching/web surfing/minecraft lappy. I'd rather have an 8-12 hr battery life(admittedly, 12 requires some very specific situations, like no wireless use), and a ridiculously low price tag.

There are very specific markets in the laptop world, and the air fits into them poorly. It's basically a netbook with specs that price it out of the netbook market.

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 11:08 AM

Just because it's a device that frequently ends up in servers doesn't mean it's a good choice for a desktop. Server stuff is mostly optimized for easy replacement and form factor.

Suggesting that this leads to a more reliable computer in the end is not terribly accurate.

I'm not suggesting that every server device will be a good choice for a desktop. I'm suggesting that server devices are of a higher quality and, when appropriate for the situation, Apple will use them in desktops.

Sure I can. The question is "which better fills the niche?". I also use desktop replacement laptops. See, to replace my desktop, it must have features like a CD drive and plenty of USB ports(gotta have my mouse and keyboard, which are not in a set for fairly good reasons. USB drives are also a common thing.). I also frequently need to plug in monitors or network cables. The air does not do this. So, it's not a reasonable choice for that need for me.

And I really don't need an SSD in my video watching/web surfing/minecraft lappy. I'd rather have an 8-12 hr battery life(admittedly, 12 requires some very specific situations, like no wireless use), and a ridiculously low price tag.

There are very specific markets in the laptop world, and the air fits into them poorly. It's basically a netbook with specs that price it out of the netbook market.

You can compare what you need to what is being offered. This is not what you were doing. You implied that the budget netbook had the same battery life as a much more expensive Apple and that the rest of the expense of a small Apple laptop was purely price gouging.

Apple don't currently offer a budget netbook line. So the best you can do is state that they don't currently offer a solution for your needs on price point. The netbook sized Macbook Air, for example, is more expensive because it is just an even smaller laptop.

As for suiting the market? It obviously fits enough of the market that Apple is trying to capture, as they keep making them.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 12:28 PM

Yora

2011-10-03, 12:34 PM

I use windows, because I chose the lesser evil.

I really don't care about the capabilities of either companies software. I guess both works just as well as the other. For me it really comes down only to which company I feel less uncomfortable to support.

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 12:57 PM

But we are talking about the right tool for the job. You don't need an i7 processor in a netbook (and if you do, you really don't need a netbook but something bigger). And 2Gb of RAM? I wasn't aware of any manufacturer that sells computers with less these days. In fact you have to look a long time to find one with less than 4.

It's the right tool for the people who have been buying it. It's not the right tool if you don't need it.

We're not talking about laptops. We're talking about netbooks and netbook sized laptops. I just did a search and found myself hard pressed to find more than 1 GB of RAM on any of the netbooks within the given price point.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-03, 01:25 PM

I'm not suggesting that every server device will be a good choice for a desktop. I'm suggesting that server devices are of a higher quality and, when appropriate for the situation, Apple will use them in desktops.

You are using this to imply a better final product with lower failure rates. This is simply not accurate. I am unaware of any desktop only failure study, but note that servers are not designed around non-failing components. Instead, they are designed such that components are extremely easy to replace when they fail, and with built in redundancy so that failure of a component does not lead to failure of the system. Use of these components in a differently designed system does NOT imply the resultant reliability of a server.

With laptops, Asus and Toshiba have the lowest failure rates. Followed by Sony. Apple is in fourth, tucked in with Dell and Lenovo. HP is not particularily good.

Note that generic desktop failure rates are much lower than laptops(sub 5% failure rates at a system level are quite normal), and thus, investing heavily in low failure parts is not generally practical.

You can compare what you need to what is being offered. This is not what you were doing. You implied that the budget netbook had the same battery life as a much more expensive Apple and that the rest of the expense of a small Apple laptop was purely price gouging.

Apple don't currently offer a budget netbook line. So the best you can do is state that they don't currently offer a solution for your needs on price point. The netbook sized Macbook Air, for example, is more expensive because it is just an even smaller laptop.

My needs are not "price point". My needs are "portable PC that lets me watch videos, surf the web, write up documents, has long battery life, and is compact". Netbooks utterly kill Airs at filling this role.

For when the need is "desktop replacement", regular PC laptops offer things the Air does not, for a comparable price point.

I don't care in the slightest if the cause is "price gouging" or something else. If it doesn't fill the needs of the role effectively, it's a poor choice.

It's the right tool for the people who have been buying it. It's not the right tool if you don't need it.

We're not talking about laptops. We're talking about netbooks and netbook sized laptops. I just did a search and found myself hard pressed to find more than 1 GB of RAM on any of the netbooks within the given price point.

The price point I gave was $250. I've got a second RAM slot in mine. Even assuming that, for some reason, I was unwilling to perform a minor upgrade myself and bought it for store upgrade prices, Mac Air's start at $1000. If I need 2 gb of RAM, going to an Air is most certainly unnecessary to achieve this.

You can compare what you need to what is being offered. This is not what you were doing. You implied that the budget netbook had the same battery life as a much more expensive Apple and that the rest of the expense of a small Apple laptop was purely price gouging.

Apple don't currently offer a budget netbook line. So the best you can do is state that they don't currently offer a solution for your needs on price point. The netbook sized Macbook Air, for example, is more expensive because it is just an even smaller laptop.

Let's compare, shall we?

Consider: the first netbook I saw in the category at newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230014) vs the entry levelAir (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air/select?mco=MjMzOTQxMjE).

Air: Better Proc(1.66 dual vs 1.2 single). 1" bigger screen. 2 gb memory. Almost 7 ounces lighter. Costs $1000
Eee: Conventional HD instead of SSD. However, has 250 Gb instead of 64. They are also available with SSD for a trivial upgrade cost if this is preferred. Note that if you consider SSD universally better than standard HDs, you probably shouldn't be rating computers. 1 gb memory(expanding to 2 shouldn't clear $100). Beats the air by 3.5 hrs of battery time. Has far more useable jacks(standard network jack without usb adapter, extra usb ports, monitor jack, HDMI jack). Known reliability winner. Costs $250

Considering that you can negate two of the air's advantages(HD and memory) if needed, and still be well under half the air's cost, it's a remarkably easy win. And I just clicked the first netbook listed.

Elder Tsofu

2011-10-03, 01:44 PM

I haven't used win 7 starter, but what would an upgrade to regular win 7 cost for the Asus? (I assume here that air comes with the full mac os)

Flickerdart

2011-10-03, 02:09 PM

It's $80 to move from Starter to Home Premium. As far as I know, OSX doesn't support anything that Professional or Ultimate gives you, so there's no need to go that far.

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 02:11 PM

You are using this to imply a better final product with lower failure rates. This is simply not accurate. I am unaware of any desktop only failure study, but note that servers are not designed around non-failing components. Instead, they are designed such that components are extremely easy to replace when they fail, and with built in redundancy so that failure of a component does not lead to failure of the system. Use of these components in a differently designed system does NOT imply the resultant reliability of a server.

Servers are designed around low failure rate parts, your claim that they are not is inaccurate. They are also designed around redundancy and ease of replacement.

My needs are not "price point". My needs are "portable PC that lets me watch videos, surf the web, write up documents, has long battery life, and is compact". Netbooks utterly kill Airs at filling this role.

For when the need is "desktop replacement", regular PC laptops offer things the Air does not, for a comparable price point.

I don't care in the slightest if the cause is "price gouging" or something else. If it doesn't fill the needs of the role effectively, it's a poor choice.

I never said your needs were "price point", but you did include a price point. Apple is not currently trying to compete at that netbook price point. Apple is not trying to fit the needs of that particular role at that particular price point. If what you need is a budget netbook that costs as little as possible, without caring about the other features, benefits or operating system, then the Macbook Air is not for you.

It is also not trying to be a desktop replacement laptop. And we've been through how desktop replacement laptops reduce their price...

The price point I gave was $250. I've got a second RAM slot in mine. Even assuming that, for some reason, I was unwilling to perform a minor upgrade myself and bought it for store upgrade prices, Mac Air's start at $1000. If I need 2 gb of RAM, going to an Air is most certainly unnecessary to achieve this.

You don't need to go to the Macbook Air to get 2GB of RAM and I never implied this. The Macbook Air comes with 2GB of RAM as standard (and can be upgraded further). The netbooks at the price point you listed do not, unlike Avilan the Grey's claim.

Also, be sure you're comparing apples to apples (errr, maybe we should say oranges to oranges?). Check the RAM and system bus speeds.

Let's compare, shall we?

Consider: the first netbook I saw in the category at newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230014) vs the entry levelAir (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air/select?mco=MjMzOTQxMjE).

Air: Better Proc(1.66 dual vs 1.2 single). 1" bigger screen. 2 gb memory. Almost 7 ounces lighter. Costs $1000
Eee: Conventional HD instead of SSD. However, has 250 Gb instead of 64. They are also available with SSD for a trivial upgrade cost if this is preferred. Note that if you consider SSD universally better than standard HDs, you probably shouldn't be rating computers. 1 gb memory(expanding to 2 shouldn't clear $100). Beats the air by 3.5 hrs of battery time. Has far more useable jacks(standard network jack without usb adapter, extra usb ports, monitor jack, HDMI jack). Known reliability winner. Costs $250

Considering that you can negate two of the air's advantages(HD and memory) if needed, and still be well under half the air's cost, it's a remarkably easy win. And I just clicked the first netbook listed.

Battery life: Be sure you are comparing correctly. Apple uses a new "wireless web" battery life performance rating system based on real world performance. I am unaware of any budget manufacturers doing the same.

Battery life part two: Netbooks gain a lot of their battery life by sacrificing performance, particularly in the processor.

RAM: As above, my claim was never that you couldn't add RAM to a netbook, only that it is part of the reason it's more expensive. The Macbook Air has more RAM as standard.

You seem to be completely missing my points. For one, I've never claimed that any particular system will be the best choice for any particular person in any particular situation.

Lord Seth

2011-10-03, 02:34 PM

Surely you had to learn a new system when the big switch from System 9 to OS X occurred?While 9->X was a major shift in the underlying architecture and thus was undoubtedly a major adjustment for programmers or "high-level" users, for the regular user for the most part all it did was add a few options, replace the Favorites in the Apple Menu with the Dock, and make the interface more colorful.
I stopped paying attention to people claiming one OS or another was "more intuitive" back in the days of floppy disks. I started out with PCs back when they were called "IBM compatibles". When I went to college and had to use Macs in the computer lab, I had this exchange:

Me: I don't need this file anymore. How do I delete it?
CompSci Lab Monitor/Helper Monkey: Just drag it into the trashcan. It's very intuitive.
Me: Ok. I'm done with my work. How do I get my disk back out? There's no eject button.
Helper Monkey: Just drag it into the trashcan!
Me: I want to get it back! I don't want to throw it out!
Helper Monkey: No, that's how you eject it.
Me: The trashcan isn't a place I normally put things that I want to keep. That's not "intuitive".No eject button? There's an eject button on my keyboard AND there's an on-computer eject button next to all ejectables in the Devices list (which is normally on the left of every file window, so it's not hard to find). That seems pretty intuitive to me, as long as you know the eject symbol. Alternatively, there's Command+E, which is intuitive considering Eject starts with E.

OracleofWuffing

2011-10-03, 06:58 PM

With laptops, Asus and Toshiba have the lowest failure rates. Followed by Sony. Apple is in fourth, tucked in with Dell and Lenovo. HP is not particularily good.
If you're talking about the report that I think you're talking about, that'd be the one SquareTrade (http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109) did. And, I mean, yes, it's nice-looking data, but that research paper has always been a naggling little trouble to me. The sample size is 30,000 computers made in the last three years, and the report itself even says that HP sold over 16 million laptops in the last year alone, so the sample size is extraordinarily small for the claims they're trying to make about the population of every laptop sold in the last three years- certainly not even a tenth of a percent, and likely not even a hundredth of a percent.

They actually have no margin of error in their data, and if you assume a "safe" 5% MoE, there's barely any difference in failure rates at all between the top six brands listed- and even if there's a 1% MoE (which I strongly doubt represents the rigor put into this research), the top four brands can still all fall in the same range.

:smallredface: Er, I mean, I know that's a completely different direction than where you were going when you announced that information, and Statistics wasn't my major, so I'm not very good at confirming my own suspicions on the matter anyway, but some depth behind that research information is warranted due to how close those rankings are. I'm not trying to say that, for example, Sony is more reliable than Toshiba when it comes to making computers, but rather that seeing the situation as "Asus is better than Toshiba is better than Sony is better than..." is a misunderstanding.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-03, 07:54 PM

Servers are designed around low failure rate parts, your claim that they are not is inaccurate. They are also designed around redundancy and ease of replacement.

For your average server? Nah. Now, you can shell out some pretty solid money for mission critical servers or elaborate blade systems, and you WILL get some amazing stuff for your money.

But the mere fact that you build a desktop that happens to share certain parts with some server builds does not mean that the desktop is inherently more reliable.

I never said your needs were "price point", but you did include a price point. Apple is not currently trying to compete at that netbook price point. Apple is not trying to fit the needs of that particular role at that particular price point. If what you need is a budget netbook that costs as little as possible, without caring about the other features, benefits or operating system, then the Macbook Air is not for you.

The point is, the air IS competing against the netbook on specs. They're both low weight/size systems that sacrifice some options for longer battery life. It's just that the netbook is exceptionally better at it.

You'll note that I DID include other features and benefits. Given that OS X systems can emulate Windows, and Windows boxes(including netbooks) can run OS X, as I've already stated...it seems mildly disingenuous to bring that up as a point again.

Pick your favorite OS, it's really a preference thing...but that doesn't need to determine your hardware choice. Nor is it a very strong argument for given hardware.

You don't need to go to the Macbook Air to get 2GB of RAM and I never implied this. The Macbook Air comes with 2GB of RAM as standard (and can be upgraded further). The netbooks at the price point you listed do not, unlike Avilan the Grey's claim.

Here's a link (http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-1000HE-10-1-Inch-Black-Netbook/dp/B001QTXL82) to the Eee coming standard with 2 Gigs of ram. It'll cost you an extra $20 over the 1 gig.

Also, be sure you're comparing apples to apples (errr, maybe we should say oranges to oranges?). Check the RAM and system bus speeds.

RAM speeds are 1333 mhz DDR 3 in both cases.

Bus speeds are unlisted, but Asus has some pretty hardcore motherboard history. I suspect they know what they're doing here.

Battery life: Be sure you are comparing correctly. Apple uses a new "wireless web" battery life performance rating system based on real world performance. I am unaware of any budget manufacturers doing the same.

As mentioned, I own an Eee. I routinely pull 8-12 hours out of it. The lower number is playing video games over wireless internet. The 12 hours is a high end number you'll only see in optimal conditions, but the advertised 8.5 is easily achievable by a normal user.

Battery life part two: Netbooks gain a lot of their battery life by sacrificing performance, particularly in the processor.

Absolutely. You lose a bit of speed going to a netbook. IMO, the speed loss for the massive battery life gain is totally worthwhile.

But if you disagree(and that is a judgement call), more powerful laptops than that particular model exist. Consider this newer Eee (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230007). It's proc is a dual core 1.6 ghz, so it'll perform extremely similarly to the macs. It comes with 2 gb of memory standard, upgradable to 4 Gb. It's parked at $440.

It'll be on par with the Air for performance, STILL crush it in battery life, and for less than half the price.

RAM: As above, my claim was never that you couldn't add RAM to a netbook, only that it is part of the reason it's more expensive. The Macbook Air has more RAM as standard.

So, we'll toss in the $20 to get to 2 gigs. We're now at $270 on the netbook, and $1000 on the air.

This doesn't seem like it's doing a great deal to make up the difference.

You seem to be completely missing my points. For one, I've never claimed that any particular system will be the best choice for any particular person in any particular situation.

My claim is that the Air is particularly poorly positioned in the market. It enjoys no compelling reason to select it as compared to any other hardware unless "being a mac" is considered a very valuable attribute.

Runestar

2011-10-03, 09:27 PM

Some parts of OSX only seem unintuitive because you have been using Windows for 10+ years and are too used to their quirks and features. So there is bound to be a transition period where you find that your conventional windows shortcuts don't really work. :smalltongue:

The point is, the air IS competing against the netbook on specs. They're both low weight/size systems that sacrifice some options for longer battery life. It's just that the netbook is exceptionally better at it.

Not really, the MBA is meant to compete against normal laptops. Its specs certainly don't strike me as being appropriate for a netbook. :smallconfused:

valadil

2011-10-03, 09:38 PM

My claim is that the Air is particularly poorly positioned in the market. It enjoys no compelling reason to select it as compared to any other hardware unless "being a mac" is considered a very valuable attribute.

I think the Air is designed to replace the iBook as a midpriced laptop. Apple knows it doesn't compete with a netbook and I don't think they want it to. It's there for people who want something a cheap primary computer. As far as I can tell, the best competition Apple has for netbooks is the iPad. Its price is a lot closer to the netbook and its main use is the secondary computer that lives on your coffee table.

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 10:04 PM

For your average server? Nah. Now, you can shell out some pretty solid money for mission critical servers or elaborate blade systems, and you WILL get some amazing stuff for your money.

But the mere fact that you build a desktop that happens to share certain parts with some server builds does not mean that the desktop is inherently more reliable.

You can buy cheap servers that sacrifice on quality by using cheaper parts, yes, but I wasn't talking about them. And using server designed and tested parts does mean that those parts are more reliable. The whole system? Not necessarily. But that was never my claim. I never claimed that using some server parts makes a whole system more reliable. Using the parts can make those parts more reliable and Apple also does their best to make the rest of the system more reliable as a whole.

The point is, the air IS competing against the netbook on specs. They're both low weight/size systems that sacrifice some options for longer battery life. It's just that the netbook is exceptionally better at it.

The point is, the Macbook Air is not competing against the budget netbook directly. It may shave some sales from the budget netbooks, but that is not where it is competing. It's competing for a higher end netbook sized laptop market. As I have said multiple times, just because it doesn't suit your needs, doesn't mean it is a bad product. It just means that it doesn't suit your needs.

You can't compare the budget netbook to an Apple Air directly. The only 'comparison' you can make is to look at what suits your needs, which a budget netbook may very well do, then decide that is all you need.

You'll note that I DID include other features and benefits. Given that OS X systems can emulate Windows, and Windows boxes(including netbooks) can run OS X, as I've already stated...it seems mildly disingenuous to bring that up as a point again.

Pick your favorite OS, it's really a preference thing...but that doesn't need to determine your hardware choice. Nor is it a very strong argument for given hardware.

I noted that you completely glossed over other features and benefits and decided that your preference was the only possible preference.

Attempting to run Mac OS X on a system it hasn't been designed for is a headache that most users who don't want to go through unless they are doing it for the technical thrill. Attempting to run Mac OS X on a motherboard that doesn't use (U)EFI (rather than the much more common in the PC market BIOS) is a headache (Microsoft will basically be forcing manufacturers to switch from BIOS to UEFI soon). Finally, attempting to use Mac OS X on a system that was not sold by Apple is against the license conditions.

Particuarly for businesses, but also for most home users, this makes it completely impractical to use Mac OS X on a non-Apple produced system.

Here's a link (http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-1000HE-10-1-Inch-Black-Netbook/dp/B001QTXL82) to the Eee coming standard with 2 Gigs of ram. It'll cost you an extra $20 over the 1 gig.

That comes standard with 1 GB (and is second hand :smalleek:). Perhaps you've used the wrong link?

RAM speeds are 1333 mhz DDR 3 in both cases.

Bus speeds are unlisted, but Asus has some pretty hardcore motherboard history. I suspect they know what they're doing here.

They might know what they're doing, but that doesn't mean they will choose the fastest or best, particularly not for the budget range. Not all ASUS motherboards are fast or even in the fast range.

Absolutely. You lose a bit of speed going to a netbook. IMO, the speed loss for the massive battery life gain is totally worthwhile.

That totally depends on your needs in your situation. Many other people will make the same decision, still others will not. The Macbook Air is not attempting to compete with the budget netbook range.

But if you disagree(and that is a judgement call), more powerful laptops than that particular model exist. Consider this newer Eee (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230007). It's proc is a dual core 1.6 ghz, so it'll perform extremely similarly to the macs. It comes with 2 gb of memory standard, upgradable to 4 Gb. It's parked at $440.

It'll be on par with the Air for performance, STILL crush it in battery life, and for less than half the price.

1.6Ghz =/= 1.6Ghz

You cannot compare different brand and/or model processors based on the pure Ghz rating. I recently saw a video review showing a Macbook Air (Intel i5 1.6 Ghz) smash an earlier model Macbook Pro (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz). Both were dual core and the Air was much faster (over twice the speed on many tasks).

So, we'll toss in the $20 to get to 2 gigs. We're now at $270 on the netbook, and $1000 on the air.

This doesn't seem like it's doing a great deal to make up the difference.

So, you've now purchased a budget netbook from a backyard vendor using Amazon's marketplace (it's not actually Amazon) and purchased additional budget RAM that has not been quality controlled for that system and is not covered under the same warranty as the machine (FYI, that netbook is second hand and already starting at $270 with only 1 GB, so an extra $20 would make it $290, though that is assuming budget RAM). What other modifications will you need to do, which are again not quality controlled for the system and won't be covered by the system warranty?

Compare oranges to oranges. That system may fill your needs, but it is not a system that can be directly compared.

"I prefer oranges because they taste better."
"I prefer apples because they are cheaper."
"I prefer potatoes because they are healthier."

I like bananas, they are healthy, taste good, and go great with ice cream. Due to a massive shortage of bananas here, because of the floods and then a cyclone, bananas skyrocketed in price. This means that I don't buy many bananas, because they are so expensive. But I can't compare it to the other fruits directly, because they are completely different fruits. I can list my preferences and reasons for having them in different situations, heck, I can even list my preferences for different fruit in different situations (I wouldn't put a banana in a meat pie, but I would put tomato in a meat pie), but I can't categorically state that one fruit is better than another for everyone in every situation.

My claim is that the Air is particularly poorly positioned in the market. It enjoys no compelling reason to select it as compared to any other hardware unless "being a mac" is considered a very valuable attribute.

It has an overall package (including features, benefits, quality, reliability, user experience, performance, support, etc.) which enough people have decided suits their needs for Apple to continue to produce and upgrade them. It enjoys no compelling reason for you to select it, you've already stated that, but it has enough compelling reasons for other people to select it based on their needs.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-03, 10:47 PM

Rawhide

2011-10-03, 11:04 PM

Yes, but that is no different from other quality manufacturers. You make it sound like others just haphazardly throw in some random hardware...

I have never claimed that other manufacturers just haphazardly throw some random hardware together, only that Apple do not. Apple are among the best in this area and the whole user experience (and consistently so).

Yes, but that is because Apple is evil, and has nothing to do with function. They just want to lock you in to their brand at all costs. Which is the OPPOSITE of "good".

No, it is because Apple design, optimise and test their software for the systems they sell, it won't run (or run well) on hardware it is not designed for. Additionally, they do not want to be providing software support for Joe Bloggs who bought a hodgepodge "white box" PC that was never designed or tested for the OS.

Fallen Angel

2011-10-03, 11:26 PM

Go with Linux.

(I prefer Ubuntu.)

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 12:16 AM

Go with Linux.

(I prefer Ubuntu.)

Linux is not the universal panacea either. Last year I did a Masters level Linux subject with a teacher that was a huge Linux enthusiast. His university profile page was all about his experience with, dedication to, and love of Linux. The subject was all about Linux and required us to have multiple different installs of Linux running concurrently through virtual machines. (Side note: Many Windows only students complained.)

One of the assignments was: "Is Linux ready for the desktop?"

After much deliberation and examination of the situation, I took the stance that no, Linux wasn't ready for the desktop. It was frightening to go against the lecturer's main passion like that, but, in the end, I received perfect marks.

Fallen Angel

2011-10-04, 04:54 AM

Yes, Google is scary. But Windows 8 Certification requires that no other OS can be installed on the computer. Not even previous versions of Windows. That doesn't scare you?

O.o

Link?

filler

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 05:21 AM

I have never claimed that other manufacturers just haphazardly throw some random hardware together, only that Apple do not. Apple are among the best in this area and the whole user experience (and consistently so).

Again, User Experience is completely subjective.

The argument that Apple's quality control is superior is not really holding water when they are ranked fourth in quality among laptop brands. ASUS, Toshiba and Sony obviously have quality programs, or they would not be ahead.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 06:45 AM

Again, User Experience is completely subjective.

See the first link I posted on this thread.

The argument that Apple's quality control is superior is not really holding water when they are ranked fourth in quality among laptop brands. ASUS, Toshiba and Sony obviously have quality programs, or they would not be ahead.

Doubt has been cast on this "study", see earlier in the thread. I would like to see the methods used, the size of the sample, and the margin for error. Also, given how close the top ones are, top four is pretty darn good.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 07:06 AM

Doubt has been cast on this "study", see earlier in the thread. I would like to see the methods used, the size of the sample, and the margin for error. Also, given how close the top ones are, top four is pretty darn good.

Well it is the most comprehensive study made, with a far larger number of machines than any other study I know of. Most tests involving computers only has one of each brand involved.
Basically my reaction is the opposite of Oracleofwuffing's: 30 000 machines is an EXTREMELY large number.

Note that for example polls are considered statistically sound if you interview more than a thousand people. This is 30 000 computers, more than enough to catch lemons as well as "lucky" ones and not letting them affect the statistical outcome.

And yes, the difference is very small in the end, but the reason I mention this is simply because I want to show that the focus on quality that Apple has is not as unique as they claims it is.

If their methods for selecting hardware really are as thorough and comprehensive as they claim, they should be miles ahead, instead of trailing (slightly) behind the top three.

(Edit: here is a link to the PDF for the test report (http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf).)

And on a lighter point :smallsmile:... again, what's with the one (1) USB port? It's like when the first Iphone couldn't send text messages... A very very stupid design choice. :smallamused::smallannoyed:

Tyndmyr

2011-10-04, 07:15 AM

You can buy cheap servers that sacrifice on quality by using cheaper parts, yes, but I wasn't talking about them. And using server designed and tested parts does mean that those parts are more reliable. The whole system? Not necessarily. But that was never my claim. I never claimed that using some server parts makes a whole system more reliable. Using the parts can make those parts more reliable and Apple also does their best to make the rest of the system more reliable as a whole.

EVERYONE tries to make their systems reliable.

The point is, the Macbook Air is not competing against the budget netbook directly. It may shave some sales from the budget netbooks, but that is not where it is competing. It's competing for a higher end netbook sized laptop market. As I have said multiple times, just because it doesn't suit your needs, doesn't mean it is a bad product. It just means that it doesn't suit your needs.

They are, though. Look, I know the PC world is inevitably going to have more variety than the Mac world is, but if you want a highly portable computer, a netbook is this obvious counterpoint to a mac air.

You can't compare the budget netbook to an Apple Air directly. The only 'comparison' you can make is to look at what suits your needs, which a budget netbook may very well do, then decide that is all you need.

Did you look at the $450 one? It's damned near identical or superior to the mac in all regards. You will never get a completely perfect match, true, but it's a quite comparable machine.

I noted that you completely glossed over other features and benefits and decided that your preference was the only possible preference.

What did I gloss over? I listed a number of features and benefits.

Attempting to run Mac OS X on a system it hasn't been designed for is a headache that most users who don't want to go through unless they are doing it for the technical thrill. Attempting to run Mac OS X on a motherboard that doesn't use (U)EFI (rather than the much more common in the PC market BIOS) is a headache (Microsoft will basically be forcing manufacturers to switch from BIOS to UEFI soon). Finally, attempting to use Mac OS X on a system that was not sold by Apple is against the license conditions.

It requires spending a few minutes following a guide on the internet.

Discussion of the EULA validity and historical court judgements on this is probably beyond the purview of these forums....however, anyone interested can google up the history for themselves. Long story short, you can install OS X on your personal boxes, but you probably shouldn't make a business out of it without talking to apple first.

Particuarly for businesses, but also for most home users, this makes it completely impractical to use Mac OS X on a non-Apple produced system.

Business use of apple computers is fairly minimal, and mostly limited to sectors

That said, most businesses with dedicated IT departments have standardized loads they put on machines anyhow. It wouldn't pose a major problem if it were considered desirable.

That comes standard with 1 GB (and is second hand :smalleek:). Perhaps you've used the wrong link?

Quite possibly, I was looking at a number of 2gb netbooks. Hit up the later link in the $450 range. That one is pretty on par with the mac system, including a 2gb memory standard.

They might know what they're doing, but that doesn't mean they will choose the fastest or best, particularly not for the budget range. Not all ASUS motherboards are fast or even in the fast range.

I would assume they are chosen such that they will not gimp the other hardware put in the system. It's a package designed for a specific purpose, and doing so would be highly suboptimal, and it's extremely unlikely that a long time motherboard manufacturer would choose an inappropriate motherboard for the job.

1.6Ghz =/= 1.6Ghz

You cannot compare different brand and/or model processors based on the pure Ghz rating. I recently saw a video review showing a Macbook Air (Intel i5 1.6 Ghz) smash an earlier model Macbook Pro (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz). Both were dual core and the Air was much faster (over twice the speed on many tasks).

Yes. There are many specs in a computer besides a processor. Overall computer - computer comparison are not the same as CPU/CPU comparisons. And you'll note that I said "extremely similar performance", not identical performance, since CPUs do have some variation. That said, unless you have specs comparing the specific 1.6 ghz procs against each other, your stats are not really relevant to this point.

It has an overall package (including features, benefits, quality, reliability, user experience, performance, support, etc.) which enough people have decided suits their needs for Apple to continue to produce and upgrade them. It enjoys no compelling reason for you to select it, you've already stated that, but it has enough compelling reasons for other people to select it based on their needs.

Asus killed apple in laptop reliability. I'm curious for a definition of quality that does not include reliability. Note that apple is not BAD at such things, but neither are they the best. They're somewhere a shade above average.

I'm not sure what other specific things you're referring to, but perhaps you could break the out. Benefits? 1 year manufacturer warranty is standard with Apple, Asus, and in fact, essentially any other company. Extended warranties are widely available for those interested in such things.

User Experience? I'm sure the apple users liked their apples, and the Asus users liked their asus choice. Both companies are considered fairly highly in such things.

If you're talking about the report that I think you're talking about, that'd be the one SquareTrade (http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109) did. And, I mean, yes, it's nice-looking data, but that research paper has always been a naggling little trouble to me. The sample size is 30,000 computers made in the last three years, and the report itself even says that HP sold over 16 million laptops in the last year alone, so the sample size is extraordinarily small for the claims they're trying to make about the population of every laptop sold in the last three years- certainly not even a tenth of a percent, and likely not even a hundredth of a percent.

They actually have no margin of error in their data, and if you assume a "safe" 5% MoE, there's barely any difference in failure rates at all between the top six brands listed- and even if there's a 1% MoE (which I strongly doubt represents the rigor put into this research), the top four brands can still all fall in the same range.

:smallredface: Er, I mean, I know that's a completely different direction than where you were going when you announced that information, and Statistics wasn't my major, so I'm not very good at confirming my own suspicions on the matter anyway, but some depth behind that research information is warranted due to how close those rankings are. I'm not trying to say that, for example, Sony is more reliable than Toshiba when it comes to making computers, but rather that seeing the situation as "Asus is better than Toshiba is better than Sony is better than..." is a misunderstanding.

There's always an error rate in such things. You'll note that Apple is significantly behind the leaders in failure rates.

Note also that you're calculating error percentage wrong. The error percentage is a percentage of the measured numbers. So, if it's a 1% error in measuring failure rates of toshibas...that's not the same thing at all as toshibas failing 1% more often. Instead, it's 1% of the measured amount, equally likely to be more or less often.

And a sample size of 30k is not particularly small. Note that pure percentage is not an accurate depiction. Surveying 10 people out of 300 is more accurate than surveying 1 out of 30, for instance.

If your worst case scenario is appropriate, and the 30k samples represent a mere hundredth of a percent of the population, then you have a 99% confidence rate of .75% error or less. That's quite accurate indeed, and leaves us extremely confident that the EXACT ranking listed is correct, given the differences between them.

lesser_minion

2011-10-04, 07:21 AM

O.o

Not even remotely. All Microsoft have said is that secure boot must be enabled before you can put a little sticker saying "Windows 8 inside" on a box.

What this actually does is require the boot loader to be digitally signed and verified before it can be run. This is useful -- there is a lot of malware in the wild that cannot actually function without subverting the boot loader.

This is not a serious obstacle to installing other operating systems -- all it means is that you'll either have to switch secure boot off yourself or find a digitally signed boot loader and install the public key yourself. Any issues you run into are not Microsoft's fault, and they are not Microsoft's problem.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-04, 07:31 AM

I also feel that this secure boot thing is overhyped. It's an option to avoid boot sector viruses, which is a generally good thing. They probably can't really use it to lock other OSes off the system entirely without risking monopoly lawsuits, so I'm not gonna sweat it.

And on a lighter point :smallsmile:... again, what's with the one (1) USB port? It's like when the first Iphone couldn't send text messages... A very very stupid design choice. :smallamused::smallannoyed:

They advertise 2 on some of the newest ones...but the one I saw on display in the apple store about a week ago only had one. So, perhaps they're going to improve on this?

I certainly hope so, as I have a wild variety of USB gadgets I like to use.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 07:40 AM

I would assume they are chosen such that they will not gimp the other hardware put in the system. It's a package designed for a specific purpose, and doing so would be highly suboptimal, and it's extremely unlikely that a long time motherboard manufacturer would choose an inappropriate motherboard for the job.

Exactly; the reason I mention them is because they are in the position of their own hardware, not that they are "faster". ASUS is a position to optimize their own pieces of hardware against eachother, like a Mac pre-intel. This is probably one reason they won the quality test.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 08:41 AM

EVERYONE tries to make their systems reliable.

Not everyone goes to the extent Apple does.

They are, though. Look, I know the PC world is inevitably going to have more variety than the Mac world is, but if you want a highly portable computer, a netbook is this obvious counterpoint to a mac air.

They aren't, though. If you want what you've identified you want at the cheapest possible price, they aren't trying to compete with it.

Did you look at the $450 one? It's damned near identical or superior to the mac in all regards. You will never get a completely perfect match, true, but it's a quite comparable machine.

I did look, it is using a different processor from a different brand. You can't look at the raw Ghz speed and claim its similar. I covered this in my last reply.

What did I gloss over? I listed a number of features and benefits.

You dismissed their importance for everyone because they are not important to you in that specific instance.

It requires spending a few minutes following a guide on the internet.

It requires far more technical knowledge that average Joe Bloe has and more effort than average Joe Bloe is willing to spend.

Discussion of the EULA validity and historical court judgements on this is probably beyond the purview of these forums....however, anyone interested can google up the history for themselves. Long story short, you can install OS X on your personal boxes, but you probably shouldn't make a business out of it without talking to apple first.

Above all else, it makes gaining support for your system incredibly difficult.

Business use of apple computers is fairly minimal, and mostly limited to sectors

That said, most businesses with dedicated IT departments have standardized loads they put on machines anyhow. It wouldn't pose a major problem if it were considered desirable.

Businesses require higer support levels as well as service level agreements, making a completely unsupported system running on this sort of custom setup infeasible.

Quite possibly, I was looking at a number of 2gb netbooks. Hit up the later link in the $450 range. That one is pretty on par with the mac system, including a 2gb memory standard.

Again, for different reasons, especially processor, this system is not "on par".

I would assume they are chosen such that they will not gimp the other hardware put in the system. It's a package designed for a specific purpose, and doing so would be highly suboptimal, and it's extremely unlikely that a long time motherboard manufacturer would choose an inappropriate motherboard for the job.

The parts are chosen for the market they are trying to capture. These budget netbooks are trying to compete on price and, in order to do so, sacrifices need to be made. The appropriate components in this case are the cheapest possible.

Yes. There are many specs in a computer besides a processor. Overall computer - computer comparison are not the same as CPU/CPU comparisons. And you'll note that I said "extremely similar performance", not identical performance, since CPUs do have some variation. That said, unless you have specs comparing the specific 1.6 ghz procs against each other, your stats are not really relevant to this point.

No, almost identical systems, with everything exactly the same except the minimum required to change the CPU, will perform drastically differently. A Pentium 4 is slower than a Pentium 3 running at the same clock speed.

Here:-
E-350: 725 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+E-350)
i5: 2116 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2467M+%40+1.60GHz)

Higher is better.

Asus killed apple in laptop reliability. I'm curious for a definition of quality that does not include reliability. Note that apple is not BAD at such things, but neither are they the best. They're somewhere a shade above average.

I'm not sure what other specific things you're referring to, but perhaps you could break the out. Benefits? 1 year manufacturer warranty is standard with Apple, Asus, and in fact, essentially any other company. Extended warranties are widely available for those interested in such things.

User Experience? I'm sure the apple users liked their apples, and the Asus users liked their asus choice. Both companies are considered fairly highly in such things.

As I've mentioned, Apple consistently offers an overall package that is ranked highly overall. This includes reliability and service, this includes quality control of parts for speed and performance in addition to just reliability. I'm not saying that they are always the best in every specific area, just that they have a good reputation for being consistently high, and deservedly so. See the first article article I linked for one of the main areas that Apple computers excel in user experience.

---

And on a lighter point :smallsmile:... again, what's with the one (1) USB port? It's like when the first Iphone couldn't send text messages... A very very stupid design choice. :smallamused::smallannoyed:

They don't have one USB port, they have two, and a thunderbolt (http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/what-is-thunderbolt-and-will-it-change-your-life/) port. You can run an external monitor off it as well as other devices, much faster than USB/Firewire.

P.S. Tyndmyr, that's also something the Macbook Air has which the budget netbooks do not, a thunderbolt port.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 08:48 AM

I did look, it is using a different processor from a different brand. You can't look at the raw Ghz speed and claim its similar. I covered this in my last reply.

I have not looked at these particular models, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. Of COURSE you can claim it is similar, if it is similar. A different processor with a different architecture can indeed be very similar in performance.

Edit: As for the Thunderbolt port... Cool. Now... will that run any of my already purchased USB-connected items? At this point it seems like a fun gadget more than anything else.

I want AT LEAST three USB ports so I can have several items plugged in at once.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 08:53 AM

I have not looked at these particular models, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. Of COURSE you can claim it is similar, if it is similar. A different processor with a different architecture can indeed be very similar in performance.

No. You can't compare two different processors that are a different model or brand and claim that they are similar because of the raw Ghz.

Ghz means nothing, absolutely nothing, except when comparing the exact same model processors.

See my last post for the CPU benchmark difference between these two "similar" CPUs, the i5 is over two times (almost three times) the speed of the E-350. See an even earlier post of mine about how an i5 1.6 Ghz was over twice the speed of a 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 08:55 AM

No. You can't compare two different processors that are a different model or brand and claim that they are similar because of the raw Ghz.

Ghz means nothing, absolutely nothing, except when comparing the exact same model processors.

See my last post for the CPU benchmark difference between these two "similar" CPUs, the i5 is over two times (almost three times) the speed of the E-350. See an even earlier post of mine about how an i5 1.6 Ghz was over twice the speed of a 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo.

I know that. I am challenging the wording of your post, where you dismiss the idea that two processors of different brands can even be compared.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 08:57 AM

I know that. I am challenging the wording of your post, where you dismiss the idea that two processors of different brands can even be compared.

I never claimed that. You have to compare based on benchmarks, not raw Ghz.

Tyndmyr claimed that they were similar because they are both 1.6 Ghz. Benchmarks which I have linked show otherwise.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 08:59 AM

I never claimed that. You have to compare based on benchmarks, not raw Ghz.

Tyndmyr claimed that they were similar because they are both 1.6 Ghz. Benchmarks which I have linked show otherwise.

Fair enough.

Xuc Xac

2011-10-04, 08:59 AM

No eject button? There's an eject button on my keyboard AND there's an on-computer eject button next to all ejectables in the Devices list (which is normally on the left of every file window, so it's not hard to find). That seems pretty intuitive to me, as long as you know the eject symbol. Alternatively, there's Command+E, which is intuitive considering Eject starts with E.

Are you really saying you have a Mac with an eject button for the floppy drive? You still have a floppy drive?

I was talking about this thing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Macintosh_Performa_6300.jpg

There's a pinhole eject switch that you can press with a bent paperclip, but getting the disk out normally required dragging the disk icon into the trashcan.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-04, 10:27 AM

Not everyone goes to the extent Apple does.

But "buying server parts" doesn't illustrate going to unusual lengths. A better failure rate is of practical importance. I don't care where the parts come from to acheive this, but what matters to the end consumer is "will it break".

I did look, it is using a different processor from a different brand. You can't look at the raw Ghz speed and claim its similar. I covered this in my last reply.

Similar, not identical, yes. They won't be equal but the performance is in the same ballpark. Exact metrics will no doubt vary depending on exact test.

You dismissed their importance for everyone because they are not important to you in that specific instance.

But, again, what are they? What is the advantage?

It requires far more technical knowledge that average Joe Bloe has and more effort than average Joe Bloe is willing to spend.

Joe Blow probably doesn't know about apple running windows or PCs running OS X to begin with. If he did, he could easily follow the instructions. It's like rooting a phone. Discovering how to do it for yourself requires some real skills. Following a guide off the internet is really easy, and MANY people without extensive technical knowledge have done so.

Above all else, it makes gaining support for your system incredibly difficult.

Not really. Call apple for the OS, call the manufacturer for hardware issues. This is not unusual. Yeah, you can't just call apple for everything. This is a minor point.

Businesses require higer support levels as well as service level agreements, making a completely unsupported system running on this sort of custom setup infeasible.

More importantly, businesses have little interest in running OS X. I have never worked for or with any company that viewed Macs as anything more than a specialized toy for very specific things.

Again, for different reasons, especially processor, this system is not "on par".

What are the other reasons?

The parts are chosen for the market they are trying to capture. These budget netbooks are trying to compete on price and, in order to do so, sacrifices need to be made. The appropriate components in this case are the cheapest possible.

It's strange that Asus has such an exceptional quality record then. Perhaps you're conflating sacrifices with cheapness unnecessarily?

No, almost identical systems, with everything exactly the same except the minimum required to change the CPU, will perform drastically differently. A Pentium 4 is slower than a Pentium 3 running at the same clock speed.

Here:-
E-350: 725 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+E-350)
i5: 2116 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2467M+%40+1.60GHz)

Higher is better.

Note that cpubenchmark specifically warns against using the numbers in this manner, as variances in OS, etc skew results. Yes, they're not exactly the same, but you can't take the numbers as a guarantee that the i5 is proportionately that much faster. Definitely not.

Also, the graphics cards are extremely similar (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html). This makes up a non trivial portion of performance, and in this they are basically identical.

I'm also amused that apple ranked their performance claims with the best system, and battery life with the lowest performance system.

As I've mentioned, Apple consistently offers an overall package that is ranked highly overall. This includes reliability and service, this includes quality control of parts for speed and performance in addition to just reliability. I'm not saying that they are always the best in every specific area, just that they have a good reputation for being consistently high, and deservedly so. See the first article article I linked for one of the main areas that Apple computers excel in user experience.

---

Nobody is arguing that, as a company, they are fairly decent in areas other than price. Not the best, but decent. That is not justification FOR their price, since other decent companies also exist.

They don't have one USB port, they have two, and a thunderbolt (http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/what-is-thunderbolt-and-will-it-change-your-life/) port. You can run an external monitor off it as well as other devices, much faster than USB/Firewire.

P.S. Tyndmyr, that's also something the Macbook Air has which the budget netbooks do not, a thunderbolt port.

The two USB ports depends on model of air, as already mentioned. Some have only one. Regardless, the Eee's start with three.

Thunderbolt? I have literally nothing that uses thunderbolt. The Eee has a VGA port. Therefore, when I take my laptop somewhere else, I can actually plug it into normal hardware that I can be assured will exist, since it's standard. Thunderbolt is an interesting port, and may one day be a wonderful thing, but it is not currently a substitute for traditional usb/monitor ports.

Note that HDMI also comes on Eees now(sadly, mine was before this), and this IS a common jack for high end display options.

Doubt has been cast on this "study", see earlier in the thread. I would like to see the methods used, the size of the sample, and the margin for error. Also, given how close the top ones are, top four is pretty darn good.

The study itself lists the size of the sample, and the methods used to collect them(random sampling of warranty visits). This is a reasonable method for collecting failure rates. Given a sample size and a population size, you can calculate error rates for a given confidence yourself.

30,000 is not a terribly small sample size. It's pretty good, actually.

I agree that fourth place is not bad, and still leaves apple a bit above average in the industry, but it's certainly not so good as to justify a premium on the price.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 11:03 AM

But "buying server parts" doesn't illustrate going to unusual lengths. A better failure rate is of practical importance. I don't care where the parts come from to acheive this, but what matters to the end consumer is "will it break".

Why are you singling this out as if I'm claiming that all of the parts will have a much lower failure rate because some of the parts are server parts? You're trying to argue that I've said something I haven't. Obviously, when the parts are not server parts, the parts that are server parts will make no difference to those non server parts.

Honestly, most of my replies to you boil down to "I never said that" or that you're not comparing oranges to oranges.

Similar, not identical, yes. They won't be equal but the performance is in the same ballpark. Exact metrics will no doubt vary depending on exact test.

Not even in the same ballpark.

But, again, what are they? What is the advantage?

I'm not going to repeat all of the reasons again. I've already covered them in this thread, if you're interested, go back and read them.

Joe Blow probably doesn't know about apple running windows or PCs running OS X to begin with. If he did, he could easily follow the instructions. It's like rooting a phone. Discovering how to do it for yourself requires some real skills. Following a guide off the internet is really easy, and MANY people without extensive technical knowledge have done so.

Joe Bloe will know about Apple computers running Windows if he knows about Apples/Mac OS X. It's displayed on their website prominently enough as well as advised to sales staff. Following the guide is definitely not "really easy" for the non-technically minded. You go on about right tools for the right job, yet you refuse to accept that this hacking method isn't the right tool for many people.

Not really. Call apple for the OS, call the manufacturer for hardware issues. This is not unusual. Yeah, you can't just call apple for everything. This is a minor point.

The level of support you will get, if any, for using such a system will be greatly reduced.

More importantly, businesses have little interest in running OS X. I have never worked for or with any company that viewed Macs as anything more than a specialized toy for very specific things.

There are many businesses out there that do. The market share is far smaller, but, even outside of graphic studios, they do exist. Your lack of experience with such companies definitely does not mean that they don't exist.

What are the other reasons?

I'm not going to repeat all of the reasons again. I've already covered them in this thread, if you're interested, go back and read them.

It's strange that Asus has such an exceptional quality record then. Perhaps you're conflating sacrifices with cheapness unnecessarily?

Sacrifices have been made in one way or another. I never said that this was on reliability of specific parts. In fact, I specifically stated that this was likely to be on speed/performance related matters.

Note that cpubenchmark specifically warns against using the numbers in this manner, as variances in OS, etc skew results. Yes, they're not exactly the same, but you can't take the numbers as a guarantee that the i5 is proportionately that much faster. Definitely not.

That is one one obvious and easy to link to site. It's not the only one. It was an easy way to explain that the chips are definitely not in the same league by a mile.

Also, the graphics cards are extremely similar (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html). This makes up a non trivial portion of performance, and in this they are basically identical.

Graphics cards make up a non trivial portion of the performance for specific applications only. Specific applications such as games.

I'm also amused that apple ranked their performance claims with the best system, and battery life with the lowest performance system.

I see no evidence of such claims. Quite the opposite, battery life is listed seperately for different models.

Nobody is arguing that, as a company, they are fairly decent in areas other than price. Not the best, but decent. That is not justification FOR their price, since other decent companies also exist.

Justification for their price is the entire package. A little extra cost here, a little extra cost there, results in a final product that costs more. They are justified in choosing those options and they are justified in selling the products at that price because they have chosen those options. Whether you or someone can justify the price in order to make the purchase is an entirely different question. If you can't, and opt for a budget netbook, then you are outside of the target market for the Macbook Air.

The two USB ports depends on model of air, as already mentioned. Some have only one. Regardless, the Eee's start with three.

The previous statement (which was not made by me) was wrong. All current model Macbook Airs come with 2 USB ports and a Thunderbolt port. I just checked.

Thunderbolt? I have literally nothing that uses thunderbolt. The Eee has a VGA port. Therefore, when I take my laptop somewhere else, I can actually plug it into normal hardware that I can be assured will exist, since it's standard. Thunderbolt is an interesting port, and may one day be a wonderful thing, but it is not currently a substitute for traditional usb/monitor ports.

Note that HDMI also comes on Eees now(sadly, mine was before this), and this IS a common jack for high end display options.

Note that Thunderbold will do VGA, DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort, all you need is the cable. Take that cable with you and you can use any of them. It is a multi purpose port. As for Thunderbold devices, they are already appearing on the market and, thanks to Intel pushing it, will start appearing much quicker.

The study itself lists the size of the sample, and the methods used to collect them(random sampling of warranty visits). This is a reasonable method for collecting failure rates. Given a sample size and a population size, you can calculate error rates for a given confidence yourself.

30,000 is not a terribly small sample size. It's pretty good, actually.

I agree that fourth place is not bad, and still leaves apple a bit above average in the industry, but it's certainly not so good as to justify a premium on the price.

When I asked that question, none of this information had been provided (it was just some vague allusion to a study that had been brought into question). As of this moment, I haven't examined it in detail.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-04, 11:28 AM

Why are you singling this out as if I'm claiming that all of the parts will have a much lower failure rate because some of the parts are server parts? You're trying to argue that I've said something I haven't. Obviously, when the parts are not server parts, the parts that are server parts will make no difference to those non server parts.

Honestly, most of my replies to you boil down to "I never said that" or that you're not comparing oranges to oranges.

My point is that you used it to support a claim of reliability, in context. It does not do so.

I'm not going to repeat all of the reasons again. I've already covered them in this thread, if you're interested, go back and read them.

I've read the entire thread. I've responded to all the reasons I see. Anything I did not respond to was a duplicate reason.

Joe Bloe will know about Apple computers running Windows if he knows about Apples/Mac OS X. It's displayed on their website prominently enough as well as advised to sales staff. Following the guide is definitely not "really easy" for the non-technically minded. You go on about right tools for the right job, yet you refuse to accept that this hacking method isn't the right tool for many people.

You could emulate it in a VM too, but there's a performance hit for that. Neither is a difficult thing to pull off.

The guides are literally step by step. Walkthrough videos on youtube exist. I don't know how it gets easier than that. You do not need to be particularly tech-minded to follow a walk through video on youtube.

The level of support you will get, if any, for using such a system will be greatly reduced.

From apple? Yes. But the support you get for hardware will be from elsewhere. You still have complete component coverage.

There are many businesses out there that do. The market share is far smaller, but, even outside of graphic studios, they do exist. Your lack of experience with such companies definitely does not mean that they don't exist.

I am aware that, in theory, apple servers and all apple companies exist. I have been in a great many data centers. I have yet to see the company that has gone all apple, or that has even tried or cared. It's pretty much all windows or *nix in the server rooms, and windows for the workstations.

That's how the market looks. There may be the odd small business or whatever making use of macs, certainly, but as you scale upward, you are increasingly less likely to see them as standard.

That is one one obvious and easy to link to site. It's not the only one. It was an easy way to explain that the chips are definitely not in the same league by a mile.

I'll agree that Intel is currently generally beating AMD, and they've got an advantage in this chip comparison, but you're putting far too much weight into CPU. It's important for system performance, yes...but a host of other things are as well. End performance of the two systems is likely to be very similar. And the AMD chip is still a pretty solid boost over the Atom. It's a quite reasonable comparison.

Graphics cards make up a non trivial portion of the performance for specific applications only. Specific applications such as games.

Math apps also make heavy use of GPUs these days. Seriously, though, think of all your heavy stuff...video, games, etc...all the things that stress the CPU also rely on the GPU. If you're writing a paper, the CPU speed is not likely to matter at all.

Also, the choice of shared system memory on the higher models of air is not a generally good one.

I see no evidence of such claims. Quite the opposite, battery life is listed seperately for different models.

It was off apples page. It's not particularly important, I just find advertising amusing. Apple certainly isn't the only company to look for ways to push the best possible image.

Justification for their price is the entire package. A little extra cost here, a little extra cost there, results in a final product that costs more. They are justified in choosing those options and they are justified in selling the products at that price because they have chosen those options. Whether you or someone can justify the price in order to make the purchase is an entirely different question. If you can't, and opt for a budget netbook, then you are outside of the target market for the Macbook Air.

You've basically got "faster CPU" as the only positive feature in a head to head comparison. This is nice, but it's difficult to justify the other negatives alone using this, let alone the more than doubled price.

And if you'd prefer to compare head to head to i5 using laptops, I suspect they'll win as well.

The previous statement (which was not made by me) was wrong. All current model Macbook Airs come with 2 USB ports and a Thunderbolt port. I just checked.

I saw an air on display a week ago with a single USB port. I'm aware that they're moving toward two. This is a step in the right direction, but considering that 3 is standard even on netbooks, this mostly just makes them not lose as much.

And IMO, usb ports are MORE important when you sacrifice the cd drive.

Note that Thunderbold will do VGA, DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort, all you need is the cable. Take that cable with you and you can use any of them. It is a multi purpose port. As for Thunderbold devices, they are already appearing on the market and, thanks to Intel pushing it, will start appearing much quicker.

Yes, I can have a pocketful of adapters. Or, I could have the most common ports pre-built in and just use what's there. I know which one I prefer.

I mean, you can run displays off USB too, but in practice, nobody actually does.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 12:26 PM

My point is that you used it to support a claim of reliability, in context. It does not do so.

I used it to indicate that they will use more expensive parts when the situation calls for it. Those individual parts are more reliable and sometimes give performance boosts (I have, for example, seen an Intel Xeon in a desktop).

I've read the entire thread. I've responded to all the reasons I see. Anything I did not respond to was a duplicate reason.

You've glossed over and dismissed out of hand reasons that many people consider important, just because you don't for your needs.

You could emulate it in a VM too, but there's a performance hit for that. Neither is a difficult thing to pull off.

The guides are literally step by step. Walkthrough videos on youtube exist. I don't know how it gets easier than that. You do not need to be particularly tech-minded to follow a walk through video on youtube.

You obviously do not deal with the average computer user very often.

From apple? Yes. But the support you get for hardware will be from elsewhere. You still have complete component coverage.

Entirely my point. Also, try getting support from a PC manufacturer that supplied your system with Windows when it now has Mac OS X. Your options there are limited.

I am aware that, in theory, apple servers and all apple companies exist. I have been in a great many data centers. I have yet to see the company that has gone all apple, or that has even tried or cared. It's pretty much all windows or *nix in the server rooms, and windows for the workstations.

That's how the market looks. There may be the odd small business or whatever making use of macs, certainly, but as you scale upward, you are increasingly less likely to see them as standard.

They exist in practice, not just theory.

I'll agree that Intel is currently generally beating AMD, and they've got an advantage in this chip comparison, but you're putting far too much weight into CPU. It's important for system performance, yes...but a host of other things are as well. End performance of the two systems is likely to be very similar. And the AMD chip is still a pretty solid boost over the Atom. It's a quite reasonable comparison.

Math apps also make heavy use of GPUs these days. Seriously, though, think of all your heavy stuff...video, games, etc...all the things that stress the CPU also rely on the GPU. If you're writing a paper, the CPU speed is not likely to matter at all.

For many applications, the CPU can be the major bottleneck, for others, it can still have a very large impact. You are understating the importance of the CPU.

Also, the choice of shared system memory on the higher models of air is not a generally good one.

I personally would prefer not to use shared memory at all. That's my personal preference and will influence my buying decisions when I look for the right tool. It doesn't mean that I would flat out not buy something with it, but that it would make me less likely to. I might decide that the other features outweigh it.

It was off apples page. It's not particularly important, I just find advertising amusing. Apple certainly isn't the only company to look for ways to push the best possible image.

I went to Apple's page and saw separate, not combined, listings.

You've basically got "faster CPU" as the only positive feature in a head to head comparison. This is nice, but it's difficult to justify the other negatives alone using this, let alone the more than doubled price.

I've listed many other reasons than faster CPU. I'm not going to continue to rehash them all.

And if you'd prefer to compare head to head to i5 using laptops, I suspect they'll win as well.

So, there are other netbook sized laptops using i5 processors that offer the benefits and features of the Macbook Air? Not saying there aren't ones that size with that level of grunt or that, if there is, it still won't be immediately comparable without considerations for specific user needs. But, if there is one, it would be a good place to start.

I saw an air on display a week ago with a single USB port. I'm aware that they're moving toward two. This is a step in the right direction, but considering that 3 is standard even on netbooks, this mostly just makes them not lose as much.

Old stock.

And IMO, usb ports are MORE important when you sacrifice the cd drive.

If you're plugging in a CD drive/etc., you're likely to have a USB hub.

Yes, I can have a pocketful of adapters. Or, I could have the most common ports pre-built in and just use what's there. I know which one I prefer.

I mean, you can run displays off USB too, but in practice, nobody actually does.

First, unlike the USB display adaptors, these aren't adaptors, just cables that have the Thunderbolt connector on one end and the particular monitor port on the other.

These can easily be stored in the case/bag that you carry your device. They don't take up much room and would fit neatly with the powerpack. Or you could accept that you don't want to do that but many other people are more than happy to for the added convenience in other areas (or just don't care one way or the other).

Just because it's not the right tool for your job, doesn't mean it's not the right tool for others. Please stop trying to project your preferences, which is clearly for a device that could fit into the budget netbook range, on the population as a whole. There are people who have looked at what this product offers and decided that it suits their needs just fine.

Talya

2011-10-04, 12:34 PM

To be fair, shared memory can be an advantage, if each system also has its own discrete memory. For example, about 7 years ago I had a Dell laptop with a Radeon video chip. The GPU had 256MB of onboard RAM, which was pretty good at the time. The system had 2GB of RAM (which was also decent.) However, the shared memory system was still in place. The video chip could borrow another 256MB of system memory if performance could benefit from it. This is preferable to simply having 256MB of video memory and no more. (And, they used the same direct-access system that the X-Box had, to speed up shared memory access.) Shared RAM is not the problem. A lack of dedicated video RAM is the problem.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-04, 01:14 PM

I used it to indicate that they will use more expensive parts when the situation calls for it. Those individual parts are more reliable and sometimes give performance boosts (I have, for example, seen an Intel Xeon in a desktop).

That's not an unusual choice in the PC world, either. Sometimes, builds happen with CPUs originally designed for servers. Meh.

Entirely my point. Also, try getting support from a PC manufacturer that supplied your system with Windows when it now has Mac OS X. Your options there are limited.

They'll replace stuff when it breaks, and help troubleshoot your breakage. Sure, they won't fix your OS problems, but this is already entirely normal for the PC world. Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so this is pretty much expected.

They exist in practice, not just theory.

Not in significant amounts.

I personally would prefer not to use shared memory at all. That's my personal preference and will influence my buying decisions when I look for the right tool. It doesn't mean that I would flat out not buy something with it, but that it would make me less likely to. I might decide that the other features outweigh it.

Reasonable. It's a common laptop problem, in fairness. Apple is hardly the only person to utilize shared memory.

So, there are other netbook sized laptops using i5 processors that offer the benefits and features of the Macbook Air? Not saying there aren't ones that size with that level of grunt or that, if there is, it still won't be immediately comparable without considerations for specific user needs. But, if there is one, it would be a good place to start.

There is not an exact copy of the Air, no. Sony and Hp both dabbled in the high performance machine/small profile market, and both dumped it as it was...blatantly uncompetitive with either desktop replacements or netbooks.

You can compare against either niche, and the exact same thing is true of the Air.

My theory is that it only exists for macs because they don't accept the netbook category, and people still lump the OS together with the hardware.

If you're plugging in a CD drive/etc., you're likely to have a USB hub.

The bigger of my netbook bags contains a USB Cd drive, true. No Hub, though. 3 slots is pretty much perfect for filling my needs. Having to pack a hub cuts into the portability advantages, btw.

First, unlike the USB display adaptors, these aren't adaptors, just cables that have the Thunderbolt connector on one end and the particular monitor port on the other.

Adapters exist in cable form in the PC world too. They're still adapters, and carrying a selection of them around is still a pain.

These can easily be stored in the case/bag that you carry your device. They don't take up much room and would fit neatly with the powerpack. Or you could accept that you don't want to do that but many other people are more than happy to for the added convenience in other areas (or just don't care one way or the other).

Granted, if you have a decently sized bag, you can slap in an external CD drive, a selection of adapters, and a USB hub. However, this is a bit like when Microsoft trumpeted their smaller console size while ignoring their huge power pack size.

It's still space in the bag, and it's still weight. Just because you moved it out of the PC doesn't make it an improvement.

Just because it's not the right tool for your job, doesn't mean it's not the right tool for others. Please stop trying to project your preferences, which is clearly for a device that could fit into the budget netbook range, on the population as a whole. There are people who have looked at what this product offers and decided that it suits their needs just fine.

I have at least eight computers, including two laptops(a recent trim), at my place atm. My needs range from netbook to rack mounted servers. I highly doubt I'm projecting my needs to everyone.

cho_j

2011-10-04, 01:59 PM

I want to preface this post by saying I know very, very little about computers. My father is a programmer, but he did not transfer the gift to me, nor is it important enough to me to go out and really learn how computers work. Thus, everything I say is going to be based on personal experience (you know, like 99% of the posts in this thread :smallwink:). With that out of the way:

I am a Mac user. I was raised in a Mac household before most people even had a computer household because my dad's job is computers and he prefers Macs. The very first computer I remember using was a big ol' Macintosh that my sister and I were allowed to play on, and I used it for KidPix and KidDesk. I was also raised in a house where we were not allowed to have video games; my mom feared that my sister and I would never go outside again if we were exposed to them (which is stupid because I now spend about 70% of my free time alone in front of a computer rather than in a room with a TV, console and other people, but I digress). As such, I was never interested in PC games because I had no freakin' idea what a game that wasn't run off a CD looked like. I DID know I was really frustrated by how many cool looking CD-rom games weren't available for Mac, but I had simply never used a Windows and was a little afraid of them. I barely held my own on a Mac, why would I want to touch the crazy keyboards my friends' families had?

Now that I'm in college, I've used Macs and PCs. When I'm put in front of a PC, I still panic like a little child at something so new and unintuitive. I have actually had to specifically talk to my Spanish teacher when we used a PC lab to do our in-class essays about how much my typing speed was slowed by the hardware so much that the essay I wrote was not an accurate reflection of my Spanish ability. When I'm put down in front of a Mac, any Mac, I go zipping off on my way. But I don't believe one is ACTUALLY more intuitive than the other. I freak out when I can't find any of the programs a PC has on it because I never learned to naturally click the start menu; I've seen kids from PC houses have the same freak out when they use a Mac with a hidden dock because they haven't been trained to wiggle the mouse around the edges of the screen until they find it.

When it comes to which is more reliable, I honestly can't say. I love my MacBook and I find it's only the applications that were originally meant for Windows that crash; meanwhile, I feel like I have to force quit something at least once every other time I use a PC. Of course, my PC-raised friend says her experience has been the exact opposite (just the other day she was railing about how every time she uses a Mac the damn thing crashes on her). My theory is that Macs and PCs can sense whether you're comfortable with them and choose to drive members of the other tribe away.

Alternatively, when you're used to one system, you know its advantages and disadvantages, and you think of them as yours. I rarely complain about iTunes' horrifically bad guessing at album art, and my PC friend rarely complains about Word crashing instead of printing, because we see them as small flaws in OUR system, nothing so bad as what the OTHER system does. I think tribe really has as much to do with it as anything else; humans are wired to pick a side, and while it's kinda stupid once you think about it, on some unconscious level OS loyalty makes sense to us.

The last thing I want to say, though, is that I hate the whole "smug Mac user" stereotype. With the exception of one dumb conversation in middle school, I have never started a fight with someone over their operating system (and that fight was really more about other problems in the friendship anyway— such is middle school). I know that I use a Mac and that I'm lucky enough to afford one, but not everyone is. I know that some people were raised in a PC house and find my OS just as confusing as I find theirs. Yes, there are some hipster jerks out there using Apple to make themselves feel superior, and Apple's ad campaign does the same thing. But I don't, and nor does everyone who owns a Mac. Honestly, for all the stuff I hear about how Mac users are so uppity, I get more flack from Windows users then I've ever heard Mac users give. My Phonetics teacher was making fun of Apple for no reason the other day when we were learning how to type the IPA and I sat there thinking, "Excuse me, I'm in this class, too, and I use a goddamn Mac. Why are you starting this fight?"

And when those fights get started by Windows users? It makes me want to fight back. It's that tribe thing again, but also nothing pisses me off more than people being intolerant, and calling Mac users sheep or hipsters or asses is exactly that. It's stereotyping, and I feel like it's just plain mean.

bluewind95

2011-10-04, 03:18 PM

My theory is that Macs and PCs can sense whether you're comfortable with them and choose to drive members of the other tribe away.

I have to say, I absolutely LOVE your theory.

As for the smug users... it's part of why I ackowledge there are Macusers (you seem to be one of those!). Sadly, there are also Maczombies, and they are prevalent and vocal and you can hear their bloodthirsty cries of "Aaaappleeeee" and "Maaaaaaaaacs" from MILES. You can banish them by shielding yourself with a Windows or a Microsoft logo... but there is a chance they will gain the "RAGE" status instead... and then you really should run from them.

Not everyone who uses Windows is, sadly, a Winuser. You also have a very dangerous breed known as Winzombie. They'll go after your Apples! They're vicious and dangerous and you can recognize them because they will rage upon seeing an Apple logo (but they will possibly own an ipod, go figure) and they will be heard from miles away groaning "Wiiindooooows" or "Miiiicrossoooooft". They're just as obnoxious as Maczombies (Though I've seen far less of them. In my experience, a more elusive breed than the Maczombie).

And then there's the rare breed of "Linxombies". These are the most elusive breed of all. They'll skip going after your mac or windows logos and instead go STRAIGHT for your brains. They'll still groan "Liiinuuuuux", but they're not as likely to rage. They'll go straight to business: your brains.

factotum

2011-10-04, 03:20 PM

Re: the argument between which is faster, a Core i5 and a 1.6GHz Atom (Netbook CPU)--well, yes, the i5 trounces it every time, no question there. However, in any single-threaded benchmark you have to bear in mind that the i5 will overclock itself to 2.3GHz, so saying a 1.6GHz Core i5 is such-and-such faster than some other CPU isn't quite true, because the i5 is running at a much faster clock speed when you're taking the measurements. Running any sort of multi-threaded real-world load it won't be able to do that and won't be quite as overwhelmingly fast.

Talya

2011-10-04, 03:43 PM

I have a netbook with a dual core atom (Asus Eee 1215n - with discrete nvidia graphics and 512MB dedicated video memory) in addition to my G73 desktop replacement. Honestly, the smaller macs are not so much more powerful than that netbook so as to warrant the 400% price difference.

lesser_minion

2011-10-04, 04:00 PM

tyckspoon

2011-10-04, 04:19 PM

However, in any single-threaded benchmark you have to bear in mind that the i5 will overclock itself to 2.3GHz, so saying a 1.6GHz Core i5 is such-and-such faster than some other CPU isn't quite true, because the i5 is running at a much faster clock speed when you're taking the measurements. Running any sort of multi-threaded real-world load it won't be able to do that and won't be quite as overwhelmingly fast.

The i5 should still show a major advantage, because they're on very different architectures as well; Atoms are simply incapable of using some of the more advanced logic commands the i-series chips can use to optimize performance. And then there's the non-clock-cycle resources the i5 has; greater on-chip memory and much greater bandwidth to the rest of the system. Clock for clock, it's just a drastically more efficient processor in everything except power consumption.

Isn't the whole point behind those things that they're cheap-as-chips and mainly intended for surfing the internet and e-mails?

"Surfing the internet" involves a *lot* of media usage these days. Dedicated graphics are nearly required to get really reliably smooth playback of things like Netflix streaming and high-def Youtube, among others, as well as porting your image out to a higher-definition TV or monitor.

Edit: Also GPU acceleration in general-purpose web browsing is one of the Next Big Things in browser design, so there's that too.

lesser_minion

2011-10-04, 04:52 PM

"Surfing the internet" involves a *lot* of media usage these days. Dedicated graphics are nearly required to get really reliably smooth playback of things like Netflix streaming and high-def Youtube, among others, as well as porting your image out to a higher-definition TV or monitor.

While it's obviously not the whole story, 512 mb of dedicated video memory is enough for most of the games that were released this year. Even for HD video, it's serious overkill.

Of the £350 paid for a netbook, the manufacturer is getting maybe £85. I'm surprised that that even covers the cost of that graphics card, let alone anything else.

Edit: Also GPU acceleration in general-purpose web browsing is one of the Next Big Things in browser design, so there's that too.

I believe you'll find that that's GPU acceleration for the purpose of games and other media applications -- for most web pages, it doesn't even make a difference, because it takes far longer to download a web page than it does to render it.

Talya

2011-10-04, 05:17 PM

Ranger Mattos

2011-10-04, 05:57 PM

O.o

Link?

filler

I already posted it, but here it is again: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-to-stop-linux-older-windows-from-running-on-windows-8-pcs/9589

Although, I did leave out one thing. While Windows 8 Certification does require that the hardware manufacturer enable Secure Boot to prevent other OSs from booting, it doesn't say whether the hardware manufacturer has to prevent Secure Boot from being disabled by the user.

Luckily, this only applies if you buy the computer from a manufacturer. If you build it yourself, you'll be fine.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 07:15 PM

The thing you have to remember (and this has been covered in the thread) is that there is one Apple and there are many PC companies. You have to compare an entire product, not just "X does this little thing better", "Y does this other thing better", "Z does this third thing better" and claim that because three different companies can do certain specific elements better, the original is inferior to all of them.

That's not an unusual choice in the PC world, either. Sometimes, builds happen with CPUs originally designed for servers. Meh.

Sometimes some companies will. I don't see it very often and I certainly don't see it as part of their main lineup. I've never claimed that Apple have exclusivity for anything. Quite the opposite actually, given the sheer number of PC companies, there's bound to be someone else that does a specific thing.

They'll replace stuff when it breaks, and help troubleshoot your breakage. Sure, they won't fix your OS problems, but this is already entirely normal for the PC world. Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so this is pretty much expected.

Many manufacturers will refuse to support you unless you install or have installed an approved operating system. Linux has the same problem, but less so.

Not in significant amounts.

Significant enough.

There is not an exact copy of the Air, no. Sony and Hp both dabbled in the high performance machine/small profile market, and both dumped it as it was...blatantly uncompetitive with either desktop replacements or netbooks.

Just because they were unsuccessful, doesn't mean that other companies will. Apple have found it successful enough to continue making it.

You can compare against either niche, and the exact same thing is true of the Air.

If you compare the Apple Macbook Air to the budget netbook, the best you can do is say that it doesn't fit that market. So what? It's not aiming to be in that market.

My theory is that it only exists for macs because they don't accept the netbook category, and people still lump the OS together with the hardware.

It exists because Apple thought, and still thinks after selling previous models, that there is a market for it. A market which has been proven to exist through previous sales. The size of the market is immaterial other than in the fact that it is large enough for Apple to continue persuing it.

The bigger of my netbook bags contains a USB Cd drive, true. No Hub, though. 3 slots is pretty much perfect for filling my needs. Having to pack a hub cuts into the portability advantages, btw.

Having to carry a hub cuts into portability far less than having to carry a CD drive. Portable hubs can be extremely tiny.

Adapters exist in cable form in the PC world too. They're still adapters, and carrying a selection of them around is still a pain.

I guess this depends on your definition of the word adaptor. The port is designed to do this, all of the capabilities are there for it and it is intended that you will use these cables, you're not 'adapting' anything.

Granted, if you have a decently sized bag, you can slap in an external CD drive, a selection of adapters, and a USB hub. However, this is a bit like when Microsoft trumpeted their smaller console size while ignoring their huge power pack size.

It's still space in the bag, and it's still weight. Just because you moved it out of the PC doesn't make it an improvement.

How many of these (small) cables would you need? At most you (personally) would need 3, VGA, DVI, and HDMI. Possibly only 1 or two (enough to match the offering of a particular netbook). They're smaller than the powerpack on your budget notebook and would easily fit in the same section of the bag without adding any significant weight.

That said, I've already mentioned that this is obviously a trade off. Many people prefer it this way, many others prefer it your way. If it's that big of a problem for you, the best you can say is that it doesn't fit your needs, not that is universally the wrong decision.

I have at least eight computers, including two laptops(a recent trim), at my place atm. My needs range from netbook to rack mounted servers. I highly doubt I'm projecting my needs to everyone.

But you are. You've said that you have no need for a particular niche and therefore there is no need for any company to cater to that niche. The thing is, that niche exists and Apple is still selling products successfully in that niche.

---

Something else that comes into the quality of the components Apple includes in their isn't just reliability. Apple laptops have some of the best touchpads available on the market, they also have very nice keyboards and extremely good screens (Anandtech described last years model as having "the best 11.6-inch display we’ve ever tested").

Full paragraph:

Many netbooks and notebooks have shipped with 11.6 inch screens. They deliver a good balance between screen size and portability. But the 11.6-inch displays we’ve encountered in the past have been crap. It’s not rocket science, but rather a matter of cost. The majority of users will pick a cheap, bright, glossy display over something with better viewing angles, higher resolution or more accurate colors. And when you’re competing mostly based on price, it’s tough to make a decision that won’t increase sales (I’d argue that it makes the most important part of your customers happier but then again, I don’t run Acer/ASUS/Dell/Gateway).

Apple opts out of low margin competition. The cheapest MacBook Air starts at $999. You pay a premium, and part of that premium goes towards the best 11.6-inch display we’ve ever tested.

The premium you pay to get an Apple goes to the entire Apple product. It goes into more reliable parts, it goes into higher quality parts, it goes into better performing parts, it goes into every little thing and every little design decision they make.

They cannot compete by claiming to have the fastest processor, someone else will be able to beat that. They can't compete by claiming to have the cheapest system, someone else will be able to beat that. They can't compete by claiming to have feature X, Y, or Z, someone else will be able to beat that. They can compete by producing overall products that consistently perform high on all of these scales.

Talya

2011-10-04, 08:57 PM

The premium you pay to get an Apple goes to the entire Apple product. It goes into more reliable parts, it goes into higher quality parts, it goes into better performing parts, it goes into every little thing and every little design decision they make.

Except they don't get "more reliable" parts. They get the exact same CPUs, the same manufacture of motherboard chipsets (even if they have slightly different configurations), the same hard drives, the same optical drives, the same...no, scratch that, generally inferior GPUs. There is nothing about an apple that makes it mechanically or electrically superior to an Asus or even *gasp* a Dell. (with the caveat that the physical construction and design of a macbook appears more durable than the average Dell, which I feel are made rather shoddily ... but that again doesn't impact the reliability of the parts inside them.) Asus notebooks, for instance, have consistently won awards for their reliability when pitted directly against Apple, as well as other brands. Apple has no claim to being more reliable.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 09:18 PM

Except they don't get "more reliable" parts. They get the exact same CPUs, the same manufacture of motherboard chipsets (even if they have slightly different configurations), the same hard drives, the same optical drives, the same...no, scratch that, generally inferior GPUs. There is nothing about an apple that makes it mechanically or electrically superior to an Asus or even *gasp* a Dell. (with the caveat that the physical construction and design of a macbook appears more durable than the average Dell, which I feel are made rather shoddily ... but that again doesn't impact the reliability of the parts inside them.) Asus notebooks, for instance, have consistently won awards for their reliability when pitted directly against Apple, as well as other brands. Apple has no claim to being more reliable.

I have never claimed that Apple have the most reliable parts all the time or that Apple are the only ones that have reliable parts. In fact, I have, on multiple occasions, explicitly stated that this is not the case.

What they do do, however, is to go to the individual parts manufacturers and order their higher quality rated parts and/or higher quality assurance tested parts, then couple that with their own rigorous testing and quality assurance from all departments.

Before someone else trys to say "But some other manufacturer does this too!", I will state (again :smallsigh:) that I am by no means stating that Apple have a monopoly on this.

I am simply stating that they are consistently high in this and other regards.

Talya

2011-10-04, 09:46 PM

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 10:08 PM

The problem, Rawhide, is that it is when compared directly against those other manufacturers that the subject of cost comes up.

Let's assume that reliability of ASUS and Apple are the same. If that is the case, why do I need to pay 200%-300% the cost of an ASUS for an Apple product that is inferior from a specifications/performance standpoint?

Now, I don't begrudge Apple the ability to markup their products as much as they do. I am sure if ASUS could make more money selling their products at the same price point, they would. Apple has a customer base willing to pay the premium for the different experience that they offer, and good for them. I question whether that's really the best thing for the customers that buy their products, but as long as they are happy with it, who am I to complain? But I truly believe whatever advantages they are getting from the premium they have paid are intangible rather than tangible.

Let us assume that the specifications and performance were identical. Let us also assume that that all of the hardware in the system was completely identical.

If this were the case, then the price of the two different systems would be similar (subject to manufacturer cycles). This is not the case, and thus I can understand why they are not.

Anandtech pointed out that the Apple Macbook Air had by far the best screen they had seen on such a small unit. Others have pointed out the touchpad is by far superior to most full sized laptops, not just notebooks. There are many other physical hardware benefits that exist in Apple products that make them what they are and add to the price.

---

If price is an issue to you and you only need the specifications of a basic netbook, buy that. It doesn't make the Macbook Air a bad product, it just makes it not the product for you. This is something I have been constantly stating. Price is a factor in decision making, the price is justified for what it gives, but you would also be justified in deciding that it was not for you due to the price and features you want.

bluewind95

2011-10-04, 10:16 PM

Frankly, I think that most of the extra cost of an Apple is pure "status" and marketing. I simply can't fathom how hardware that MAY fail 0.01% less than other hardware can possibly cost about twice as much as other hardware.

But, you know, for some people, status is definitely worth the extra price. They like it. It's part of their experience. And, I say, if they get status AND a good item in the same package, well hey, more power to them. But claiming that they're somehow better than everything else is where I draw the line.

Personally, frankly, I don't LIKE the macs. They look very ugly to me. I also highly dislike the feel of their touchpad and I even more so dislike the lack of a physical second mouse button... I do love that screen, though.

Lord Seth

2011-10-04, 10:22 PM

I feel like I should make a list of statements/claims always made in topics like this and then make a bingo game out of it.

On a semi-related note, is Apple still ranked #1 in customer service? I know they used to be but don't know if they still are.

valadil

2011-10-04, 10:28 PM

One of the points that's come up a number of times is that you can install OS X on a non-Mac. I don't think that's as relevant as it's being made out to be. Most users will never install an OS. Fewer still will install something weird like OS X on a machine it wasn't intended for. Most people are going to use the computer's factory settings for the duration of the machine's lifespan.

For users like that, the extra cost of an Apple buys them OS X. In those cases, it's not fair to only compare the hardware. I'm not saying that alone justifies the price gap between an EeePC and a Macbook Air, but it's something.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 10:32 PM

But claiming that they're somehow better than everything else is where I draw the line.

I've never claimed that they are somehow better than everything else. Far from it.

Talya

2011-10-04, 10:40 PM

Let us assume that the specifications and performance were identical. Let us also assume that that all of the hardware in the system was completely identical.

If this were the case, then the price of the two different systems would be similar (subject to manufacturer cycles). This is not the case, and thus I can understand why they are not.

Anandtech pointed out that the Apple Macbook Air had by far the best screen they had seen on such a small unit. Others have pointed out the touchpad is by far superior to most full sized laptops, not just notebooks. There are many other physical hardware benefits that exist in Apple products that make them what they are and add to the price.

---

If price is an issue to you and you only need the specifications of a basic netbook, buy that. It doesn't make the Macbook Air a bad product, it just makes it not the product for you. This is something I have been constantly stating. Price is a factor in decision making, the price is justified for what it gives, but you would also be justified in deciding that it was not for you due to the price and features you want.

I'm not comparing my netbook to a macbook air, actually. It wouldn't be fair to do so, to either company. They're different types of products. I am comparing my G73jh-A1 to the top of the line macbooks that were available at the time I bought it. My $1400, 17.3" desktop replacement notebook had far better specifications in every category, just as nice a screen, and a price point that was far less than HALF the absolutely most powerful Macbook you could get. That an "apples to apples" comparison (forgive the expression.)

At the time I got my ASUS G73, you could not get an i7 CPU in a macbook at all. The best GPU available on the mac was a generation and several models behind. It had half the RAM, and half the hard drive space (and slower drives than the 7200 RPM notebook drives in the ASUS). And it cost far more than double. Seriously, the price was about $3400 for the apple vs. $1400 for the ASUS. Six months later, Apple was starting to try to get competitive, from a specifications standpoint. They suddenly could match my CPU and RAM, but were still behind on the GPU and still had half the available hard drive space. And the price point was still far more. What is that extra money getting you?

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-04, 10:47 PM

I've never claimed that they are somehow better than everything else. Far from it.

The problem is that you keep bringing up their hardware selection process as this HUGE benefit, and every time we point out that it doesn't seem to matter, you backtrack and say something like this. And then two posts later you still hype their hardware selection process as a benefit. Again.

You can't have it both ways.

I am confused: Do you consider Apple's way of selecting hardware for their products superior or not?

If you do, WHY is that exactly, since it would appear the only thing it does is increasing the price without actually increasing the quality?

You have so far failed to provide any evidence that their hardware is, in fact, benefiting the customer.

Rawhide

2011-10-04, 10:53 PM

I'm not comparing my netbook to a macbook air, actually. It wouldn't be fair to do so, to either company. They're different types of products. I am comparing my G73jh-A1 to the top of the line macbooks that were available at the time I bought it. My $1400, 17.3" desktop replacement notebook had far better specifications in every category, just as nice a screen, and a price point that was far less than HALF the absolutely most powerful Macbook you could get. That an "apples to apples" comparison (forgive the expression.)

At the time I got my ASUS G73, you could not get an i7 CPU in a macbook at all. The best GPU available on the mac was a generation and several models behind. It had half the RAM, and half the hard drive space (and slower drives than the 7200 RPM notebook drives in the ASUS). And it cost far more than double. Seriously, the price was about $3400 for the apple vs. $1400 for the ASUS. Six months later, Apple was starting to try to get competitive, from a specifications standpoint. They suddenly could match my CPU and RAM, but were still behind on the GPU and still had half the available hard drive space. And the price point was still far more. What is that extra money getting you?

Ah, ok. I don't know the specifics of either product at that particular time. I don't know what each one contained, what each of the component parts were, or any of the other factors were, or what phase of the cycle each manufacturer was in, so I can't comment directly. I can only state that not everything you consider important are what the manufacturers considered important and thus, if you had chosen the Macbook, you might have been paying for features you didn't know about and/or would never have used.

All the little decisions add up. A small bit here, a small bit there, a larger bit there, another small bit, to the final cost.

(And, like I said, if the features you valued were elsewhere for a cheaper price and it has served you well, then you made the right choice for your needs.)

The problem is that you keep bringing up their hardware selection process as this HUGE benefit, and every time we point out that it doesn't seem to matter, you backtrack and say something like this. And then two posts later you still hype their hardware selection process as a benefit. Again.

You can't have it both ways.

I am confused: Do you consider Apple's way of selecting hardware for their products superior or not?

If you do, WHY is that exactly, since it would appear the only thing it does is increasing the price without actually increasing the quality?

You have so far failed to provide any evidence that their hardware is, in fact, benefiting the customer.

I have never claimed that it is a "HUGE" benefit and I have never backtracked. I have claimed that it is a benefit and that it is part of the benefits of choosing an Apple product. There are many other benefits, all of which I have listed. I have also stated, clearly, that Apple does not have a monopoly on any one benefit. Multiple times. I have also stated that it is just one of a number of things that add to the price and need to be considered. You're the one that has blown it out of proportion and attempted to make it seem like I think it is a major factor, when I've repeatedly said that it is just one small part of a much larger package.

It both increases the price and the quality. It increases the quality of that specific part on that specific computer. It can also increase the performance, depending on the part. (Or, more accurately, quality assurance.)

There has been absolutely no contradiction in my statements.

---

If the value added features you desire line up with the value added features Apple provides, then it becomes the product for you. If they don't, then it might very well not be the product for you.

Talya

2011-10-04, 11:15 PM

I have never claimed that it is a "HUGE" benefit and I have never backtracked. I have claimed that it is a benefit and that it is part of the benefits of choosing an Apple product. There are many other benefits, all of which I have listed. I have also stated, clearly, that Apple does not have a monopoly on any one benefit. Multiple times.

It both increases the price and the quality. It increases the quality of that specific part on that specific computer. It can also increase the performance, depending on the part.

There has been absolutely no contradiction in my statements.

The problem is, other companies provide all but one of these benefits without the cost premium for them, and that one benefit can be given a cost (What does it cost to go buy OSX? $90 on Amazon.com, apparently. Let's even be generous and assume that because any separately purchased OSX is going to be an "upgrade" version, the actual cost for it is more like $180.) For that to be an advantage, you have to want OSX, of course. AND you have to not want Windows, because then you have to buy it anyway. So let's ignore the OS.

Apart from the OS, the only other thing apple has that none of these other notebooks have, is one that I believe is the primary thing you pay for when you buy an apple product.

http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/silver-apple-logo.png

That is the single largest cost of any Apple product. It is one of the most brilliant, successful marketing campaigns of all time. The thing is, someone like me who actually prefers the taste of a cheaper Tim Horton's coffee to a grande at Starbucks might not be the target customer base.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-05, 01:23 AM

That is the single largest cost of any Apple product. It is one of the most brilliant, successful marketing campaigns of all time. The thing is, someone like me who actually prefers the taste of a cheaper Tim Horton's coffee to a grande at Starbucks might not be the target customer base.

I agree here. The actual image of the brand has somewhat shifted though thanks to the iPod and iPhone. That silvery apple used to signal "I am artistic! Maybe even a bit bohemic! I am certainly creative and I probably prefer wine over beer". I still get those associations when I see an apple computer.

The iPod changed that, and the sellable image, which saved Apple from going belly up, became "I am on the go! I am always on my way somewhere! I am cool and in the frontline of technology without being a geek".

Of course now Apple is mainstream (except their computers!), most people and their grandmothers have either an iPod, an iPhone or an iPad. And they all connect them to their Windows computer.
Because the Apple computers still lives on the image they originally had. Apple never managed (or never wanted to) move them to the other, "cool" marketing segment. My guess is that they were simply too expensive for them to be able to.

...and now iPod and iPhone doesn't signal much of everything, since everyone from 8-80 has one. On the other hand that means Apple don't have to worry about marketing them much.

It both increases the price and the quality. It increases the quality of that specific part on that specific computer. It can also increase the performance, depending on the part. (Or, more accurately, quality assurance.)

There has been absolutely no contradiction in my statements.

I disagree. You keep insisting that Apple hardware is really really good, and that their selection and certification process is superior over all other brands.

The problem is that you have failed (and so have clinical tests) to show that that is actually true.

The OTHER thing you have pushed as a great benefit is this "Complete Package" with "User Experience" etc that, quite frankly, we have a problem replying to because we have no idea what you actually mean with "Complete Package". It's not like you get anything when you buy a Mac that you don't get if you buy a windows computer.

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 02:31 AM

I disagree. You keep insisting that Apple hardware is really really good, and that their selection and certification process is superior over all other brands.

The problem is that you have failed (and so have clinical tests) to show that that is actually true.

The OTHER thing you have pushed as a great benefit is this "Complete Package" with "User Experience" etc that, quite frankly, we have a problem replying to because we have no idea what you actually mean with "Complete Package". It's not like you get anything when you buy a Mac that you don't get if you buy a windows computer.

No, I have never claimed that their selection process is superior to all other brands all the time. I have claimed that they are consistently amongst the highest, and have a well deserved reputation for being consistently amongst the highest, but never ever that they are the highest always. In fact, I have been quite clear that this is not necessarily the case.

When you buy anything, you buy a complete package. Brand A might offer better this, Brand B might offer better that, and Brand C might offer a better something else. When you buy the product, you need to look at the complete package and compare that to your needs.

The price is based on the complete package. All of the features and benefits, added together. The complete package includes all of the different hardware components that are of a higher quality (this isn't just reliability, but usability and appearance, etc. as well) or otherwise of a higher cost to Apple because they want to include/use a specific feature that might be taken completely for granted, it includes the research and development process, it includes the aesthetic designing and the parts necessary for the design (no one wants an ugly computer), it includes the quality assurance process, it includes the operating system and software available for it (Hey look! Part of the complete package that is definitely not in Apple's favour: You need to buy a second OS to get maximum compatibility), it includes a whole range of extra services (pre and post sale).

In addition, marketing costs will also increase the price as these fees need to be recouped. If you buy from a company that markets as much as Apple or Sony, expect to pay for it.

The point I'm making is that you cannot hone down any one single element and go "Ha! This company is better because this one product they produce is xyz with this one single component". People make decisions based on the complete package offered.

The ASUS with Windows computer has a complete package which, when compared to the Apple computer's complete package, has various pros and cons. You work out which particular provider is offering a complete package that best suits your needs at the price you are willing to pay.

Phishfood

2011-10-05, 03:54 AM

Anandtech pointed out that the Apple Macbook Air had by far the best screen they had seen on such a small unit. Others have pointed out the touchpad is by far superior to most full sized laptops, not just notebooks. There are many other physical hardware benefits that exist in Apple products that make them what they are and add to the price.

This. Its worth noting that the 17" display on the macbook is a 1080p HD display, glossy and crystal clear.

I HATE using trackpads, except on my macbook. On my macbook I love it. Its huge, I can scroll, I can skip tracks, switch tasks all using the trackpad. Admittedly, a large part of that is software rather than hardware.

The trouble with comparing mac vs non-mac is that there are a LOT of differences that individually are meaningless. The magsafe power lead, the neat transformer, the expresscard expansion slot. The integrated speakers are the most amazing speakers I have heard at that size. The aluminium body does a great job of disipating heat without having vents to get full of dust. I guarantee there are more things I haven't thought of.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-05, 05:04 AM

This. Its worth noting that the 17" display on the macbook is a 1080p HD display, glossy and crystal clear.

I HATE using trackpads, except on my macbook. On my macbook I love it. Its huge, I can scroll, I can skip tracks, switch tasks all using the trackpad. Admittedly, a large part of that is software rather than hardware.

The trouble with comparing mac vs non-mac is that there are a LOT of differences that individually are meaningless. The magsafe power lead, the neat transformer, the expresscard expansion slot. The integrated speakers are the most amazing speakers I have heard at that size. The aluminium body does a great job of disipating heat without having vents to get full of dust. I guarantee there are more things I haven't thought of.

Speaking of trackpads... they drive me insane; I always end up touching them when typing and copying text or something that I don't intend to do. Lately I have even contemplated to just uninstall them (set the hardware as "inactive" in Windows). I always use a mouse anyway.

I agree, Apple has many great design choices. I love the look of most of their products.

...And then they go and do really dumb things (like, again, the lack of MMS capability and the inability to use Flash in the iPhone, or the lack of USB ports on their smaller computers).
Sometimes it even feels like they are not really professionals, but design just for themselves. "I never use more than 1 (or 2) USB ports and that means nobody else does either!".

On the other hand many PC manufactures do weird things too. I will never understand the hinge design that makes the screen slide a little down the back of the actual computer part on many laptops. Because that makes putting ANY ports there impossible.
On my new laptop, the G74SX, the reason is clear; the whole back is one big vent to blow out hot air (and 1" tall; it is a desktop replacement model after all), but on smaller models? Why not do like in the old days and cram as much ports as you can on the back instead of trying to make them fit on the sides. Especially since they apparently have never heard of left-handed people so I can't use a mouse comfortably since all USB cables go in where I want my mouse. (Especially HP is guilty of this).

Trixie

2011-10-05, 05:21 AM

The price is based on the complete package. All of the features and benefits, added together. The complete package includes all of the different hardware components that are of a higher quality (this isn't just reliability, but usability and appearance, etc. as well)

Erm... How exactly are Apple iCore processors better than exactly the same Asus iCore processors? Does the logo give them +2 masterwork bonus? :smallconfused:

One component that might have been better is the trackpad, but that changed already, and I'd bet companies like Asus and Samsung that actually produce their hardware (unlike Apple, that outsources this to no-name producers like Quanta or Foxconn) and thus have superior QC capabilities are better. All other components are the same, except for the fact these in Apple are 1-2 generations behind.

or otherwise of a higher cost to Apple because they want to include/use a specific feature that might be taken completely for granted,

Feature that might be taken for granted? Looking at my laptop... 4 USB 3.0 ports, for example? Wait, Apple doesn't support that? Oh, sorry then. VGA/HDMI ports? No? Ah. E-SATA? S/PDIF? 2 HDD bays? A few other?

...I'm sorry, all I see in my laptop is a dozen features Apple fails to match, and zero my laptop fails to match. Oh, and it costed 200$ less than Apple, despite far superior graphic card.

it includes the research and development process,

This is done by Intel, Asus and Samsung, the companies that actually make Apple parts. Apple does research for themselves, but mostly limited to outside appearance, aesthetic, and gloss. The only inside parts I heard them design is altering the shape of main boards designed by others so that they fit inside their hardware, and connecting various parts together. That's it.

it includes the quality assurance process,

I don't know how it looks in the USA, but in Europe, guarantee and service terms offered by Apple were the worst out of 5-6 competitors I compared, and that in 3 countries I lived in.

it includes the operating system and software available for it (Hey look! Part of the complete package that is definitely not in Apple's favour. You need to buy a second OS to get maximum compatibility.)

...when you look at what you overpay for the first time, buying Apple, then second time, buying second OS, and reach conclusion a superior machine with the same OS will cost 200-500$ less (depending on configuration - actual sums from 3 times I was looking to buy new laptop), you begin to ask yourself 'why bother?' and conclude games/movies/music in superior quality are actually superior user experience.

Better trackpad? I guess, but I use Razer Deathadder mouse anyway, offering me superior experience on Wintel, so not even a point there.

it includes a whole range of extra services (pre and post sale).

Such as? :smallconfused: I'm not aware of any not offered by others, though I probably missed them.

In addition, marketing costs will also increase the price as these fees need to be recouped. If you buy from a company that markets as much as Apple or Sony, expect to pay for it.

Samsung actually has higher marketing budgets, and cost less. No, Apple and Sony are priced such solely because they are vanity brands, and simply can't cost as much as the opposition to not destroy their image. Exactly like these top-of-the-line Nike shoes for 199$ that actually costed 12$ to make. Vanity and nothing else.

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 05:29 AM

Erm... How exactly are Apple iCore processors better than exactly the same Asus iCore processors? Does the logo give them +2 masterwork bonus? :smallconfused:

One component that might have been better is the trackpad, but that changed already, and I'd bet companies like Asus and Samsung that actually produce their hardware (unlike Apple, that outsources this to no-name producers like Quanta or Foxconn) and thus have superior QC capabilities are better. All other components are the same, except for the fact these in Apple are 1-2 generations behind.

Feature that might be taken for granted? Looking at my laptop... 4 USB 3.0 ports, for example? Wait, Apple doesn't support that? Oh, sorry then. VGA/HDMI ports? No? Ah. E-SATA? S/PDIF? 2 HDD bays? A few other?

...I'm sorry, all I see in my laptop is a dozen features Apple fails to match, and zero my laptop fails to match. Oh, and it costed 200$ less than Apple, despite far superior graphic card.

This is done by Intel, Asus and Samsung, the companies that actually make Apple parts. Apple does research for themselves, but mostly limited to outside appearance, aesthetic, and gloss. The only inside parts I heard them design is altering the shape of main boards designed by others so that they fit inside their hardware, and connecting various parts together. That's it.

I don't know how it looks in the USA, but in Europe, guarantee and service terms offered by Apple were the worst out of 5-6 competitors I compared, and that in 3 countries I lived in.

...when you look at what you overpay for the first time, buying Apple, then second time, buying second OS, and reach conclusion a superior machine with the same OS will cost 200-500$ less (depending on configuration - actual sums from 3 times I was looking to buy new laptop), you begin to ask yourself 'why bother?' and conclude games/movies/music in superior quality are actually superior user experience.

Better trackpad? I guess, but I use Razer Deathadder mouse anyway, offering me superior experience on Wintel, so not even a point there.

Such as? :smallconfused: I'm not aware of any not offered by others, though I probably missed them.

Samsung actually has higher marketing budgets, and cost less. No, Apple and Sony are priced such solely because they are vanity brands, and simply can't cost as much as the opposition to not destroy their image. Exactly like these top-of-the-line Nike shoes for 199$ that actually costed 12$ to make. Vanity and nothing else.

You have completely missed and/or ignored all of the points I have made. I'm really getting tired of people putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting and/or deliberately misconstruing what I have been saying. I have no need to address the above points as they have all been addressed previously.

In particular, I have already said that identical parts sourced under identical conditions will not, by themselves, make any difference between those two manufacturers - it is that you cannot look at any one single component and say that the complete package is better or worse because of that one single component unless that one single component is the one and only difference between both complete packages. The best you can say is "I place a lot of weight on that particular component and that makes it a better complete package for me".

Phishfood

2011-10-05, 06:09 AM

One component that might have been better is the trackpad, but that changed already, and I'd bet companies like Asus and Samsung that actually produce their hardware (unlike Apple, that outsources this to no-name producers like Quanta or Foxconn) and thus have superior QC capabilities are better. All other components are the same, except for the fact these in Apple are 1-2 generations behind.

What? "people who make their own hardware have better qc" that makes no sense. The trackpad has changed how?

I'm not going to touch processor speed, a chip is a chip. Of course how its USED can be very different.

Feature that might be taken for granted? Looking at my laptop... 4 USB 3.0 ports, for example? Wait, Apple doesn't support that? Oh, sorry then. VGA/HDMI ports? No? Ah. E-SATA? S/PDIF? 2 HDD bays? A few other?

...I'm sorry, all I see in my laptop is a dozen features Apple fails to match, and zero my laptop fails to match. Oh, and it costed 200$ less than Apple, despite far superior graphic card.

Can't comment on USB 3, but my laptop definitely supports HDMI, DVI and VGA out. Ok, no it doesn't have 2 hard drive bays, but that is true of most laptops I have ever seen. As for the SPDIF, that is a common PROBLEM with apple devices - it uses the same jack as the 3.5mm and sometimes gets "stuck" on optical and disables the speakers. Nothing a quick spraydust doesn't fix though.

I don't know how it looks in the USA, but in Europe, guarantee and service terms offered by Apple were the worst out of 5-6 competitors I compared, and that in 3 countries I lived in.

They looked pretty much the same to me.

Lastly, if you are going to use "costed" instead of "cost" at least be consistent. Better yet just stick with "cost".

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-05, 06:36 AM

You have completely missed and/or ignored all of the points I have made. I'm really getting tired of people putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting and/or deliberately misconstruing what I have been saying. I have no need to address the above points as they have all been addressed previously.

In particular, I have already said that identical parts sourced under identical conditions will not, by themselves, make any difference between those two manufacturers - it is that you cannot look at any one single component and say that the complete package is better or worse because of that one single component unless that one single component is the one and only difference between both complete packages. The best you can say is "I place a lot of weight on that particular component and that makes it a better complete package for me".

If everyone is misunderstanding what you are trying to say, chances are you are not saying it very well. My excuse is that this is not my first language, but I interpret this quote and a few others like this by you in this thread...

"The premium you pay to get an Apple goes to the entire Apple product. It goes into more reliable parts, it goes into higher quality parts, it goes into better performing parts, it goes into every little thing and every little design decision they make."

...as if you are indeed saying that you pay more because Apple Hardware is simply more reliable due to their selection process. That's why we keep bringing up that statistically, these "reliable parts" that are "higher quality" actually does not appear to be such, since they despite the extra cost are on 4th place, quality wise. We have also shown that the "better performing" part is false.

Talya

2011-10-05, 06:50 AM

This. Its worth noting that the 17" display on the macbook is a 1080p HD display, glossy and crystal clear.

Hey! So is the one on the 17.3" Asus G73! Having seen them side-by-side, it's brighter than the one on the Macbooks, too, with similar viewing angles. The new G74 is an 18.4"...I want one.

I HATE using trackpads, except on my macbook. On my macbook I love it. Its huge, I can scroll, I can skip tracks, switch tasks all using the trackpad. Admittedly, a large part of that is software rather than hardware.

I'm not a big fan of trackpads on Macs or any other device, but they're a necessary evil on superportables like Macbook Air or netbooks.

The trouble with comparing mac vs non-mac is that there are a LOT of differences that individually are meaningless. The magsafe power lead, the neat transformer, the expresscard expansion slot. The integrated speakers are the most amazing speakers I have heard at that size. The aluminium body does a great job of disipating heat without having vents to get full of dust. I guarantee there are more things I haven't thought of.

It should be noted that the speakers in my G73 are by Altec Lansing, and include a subwoofer. In a notebook.

Huh. Neat, huh?

You won't do well comparing any macbook's screen, GPU, or sound system against an ASUS gaming laptop, even though the Macbook costs three times more.

factotum

2011-10-05, 07:00 AM

Talya

2011-10-05, 07:13 AM

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 07:13 AM

If everyone is misunderstanding what you are trying to say, chances are you are not saying it very well. My excuse is that this is not my first language, but I interpret this quote and a few others like this by you in this thread...

It's only a few people who are targeting different minor sub-points as if they are the main issue and/or taking elements from one discussion or tangent and applying it to another (i.e. someone said that all netbooks came standard with 2 GB, I simply showed that this was not the case, then suddenly this was focused on like it was the single most important issue I had raised about something else).

...as if you are indeed saying that you pay more because Apple Hardware is simply more reliable due to their selection process. That's why we keep bringing up that statistically, these "reliable parts" that are "higher quality" actually does not appear to be such, since they despite the extra cost are on 4th place, quality wise. We have also shown that the "better performing" part is false.

First, you have in no way shown that the better performing part is false.

Higher =/= Highest

(FYI "=/=" means "is not equal to".)

If they are placing 4th place, with such a small gap between all the top contenders, I would say (and have previously on this thread) that this is pretty darn good.

---

I have never stated that Macs are the best option in any given situation, only that they are a very respectable contender for the reasons that, across the board, they are performing amongst the highest, and that the prices are justified for one reason or another. It is not "price gouging".

For what its worth, I don't personally own a Mac at all. Every time I've looked at buying a new computer, I have investigated buying a Mac. But every time I've decided that it wasn't suitable to my needs, mainly on price.

Most Macs are are just too expensive for me, what I need to do, at the level I need to do it, can be done with a cheaper alternative and I have opted for that. That said, this doesn't make the Mac any less of a system, and I can see why there is that greater expense, but it wasn't the system for me at the time.

Talya

2011-10-05, 07:18 AM

I have never stated that Macs are the best option in any given situation, only that they are a very respectable contender for the reasons that, across the board, they are performing amongst the highest, and that the prices are justified for one reason or another. It is not "price gouging".

They are justified. It's the Publilius Syrus justification, and that's the only important one. People are willing to pay for it, so it is not price gouging. However, Apple is not giving its customers anything tangible over other manufacturers to account for the price difference. Apple purchasers have decided that the name and style is worth a 300% markup on the same performance and quality purchased from someone else.

For what its worth, I don't personally own a Mac at all. Every time I've looked at buying a new computer, I have investigated buying a Mac. But every time I've decided that it wasn't suitable to my needs, mainly on price.

Most Macs are are just too expensive for me, what I need to do, at the level I need to do it, can be done with a cheaper alternative and I have opted for that. That said, this doesn't make the Mac any less of a system, and I can see why there is that greater expense, but it wasn't the system for me at the time.

See, I also compare against Mac every time I go to make a purchase, just to check and see if it is something worth looking into. It never is, for the same reasons you don't own one. I can get more of what I want, at a much lower price, from other manufacturers.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-05, 07:35 AM

Forgive me for being a little out of date, but that graphics card sounds way more hardcore than anything I'd expect to find in a netbook. Isn't the whole point behind those things that they're cheap-as-chips and mainly intended for surfing the internet and e-mails?

That's how they started out, yes...however, the graphics are now frequently competitive with much larger laptops. They're not going to touch a high end desktop gaming machine or anything, but netbooks frequently come with good enough graphics to play pretty decent games(hell, even my old Eee would run wow pretty decent if I dialed the settings down).

TBH, the price/performance/size ratio of netbooks kind of amazes me.

The i5 should still show a major advantage, because they're on very different architectures as well; Atoms are simply incapable of using some of the more advanced logic commands the i-series chips can use to optimize performance. And then there's the non-clock-cycle resources the i5 has; greater on-chip memory and much greater bandwidth to the rest of the system. Clock for clock, it's just a drastically more efficient processor in everything except power consumption.

While true, the netbook CPU we were comparing against is an E-350, which also pretty much crushes the atom. Netbooks no longer universally use the atom proc, which is pretty good news for performance.

So, while the 350 still isn't the equal of the i5...it's a helluva lot closer than it was made out to be.

And yes, you can get a cheaper laptop that absolutely crushes the Air price AND performance wise...comparing against a similar netbook helps negate the "but it's smaller!" argument, and shows just how vast the price gulf is between mac and the rest of the world.

Significant enough.

I am literally unable to find a study that bothers to even put Mac on the chart for servers. Compared to *nix and Windows, they are about as significant as a rounding error.

I did find the 2001 numbers. They shipped 1,525 servers. Like, Mac, as a whole. That is "basically irrelevant". I don't know if they counted servers they shipped internally, but if so, it gets even more hilarious how few people actually want Mac servers.

So, clearly, the amount of major companies that are all mac(or close) is pretty much nil.

If you compare the Apple Macbook Air to the budget netbook, the best you can do is say that it doesn't fit that market. So what? It's not aiming to be in that market.

It does not fit any known market.

It exists because Apple thought, and still thinks after selling previous models, that there is a market for it. A market which has been proven to exist through previous sales. The size of the market is immaterial other than in the fact that it is large enough for Apple to continue persuing it.

The market basically does not exist in any other company, because it's cannibalized by the much more popular netbooks.

I propose that the Air market only exists because Mac doesn't sell netbooks. People WANT a netbook like thing, it's just that in the OS X lineup, it's the only real option like what they want.

Having to carry a hub cuts into portability far less than having to carry a CD drive. Portable hubs can be extremely tiny.

True, but unpowered hubs are also not fantastic. Power draw is a factor.

Even worse, many USB hard drives that are entirely mobile rely on dual USB jacks to get enough power. And of course, an unpowered hub really isn't going to help with that. You basically can't effectively use such things...and these are devices designed to be portable!

I guess this depends on your definition of the word adaptor. The port is designed to do this, all of the capabilities are there for it and it is intended that you will use these cables, you're not 'adapting' anything.

Usb to X cables are considered adapter cables, despite the fact that it was intended to be a completely universal port, adaptable to anything. It's a standard term. If you're changing to a different type of jack, it's an adapter. Designer intent really doesn't enter into it.

How many of these (small) cables would you need? At most you (personally) would need 3, VGA, DVI, and HDMI. Possibly only 1 or two (enough to match the offering of a particular netbook). They're smaller than the powerpack on your budget notebook and would easily fit in the same section of the bag without adding any significant weight.

Granted, but by the time you're adding a few adapters, a usb hub, and a cd drive, you're in a weight and space class competitive with a larger laptop. It's not as though full sized laptops are really that big and heavy anymore...

But you are. You've said that you have no need for a particular niche and therefore there is no need for any company to cater to that niche. The thing is, that niche exists and Apple is still selling products successfully in that niche.

The niche is arguably only the underserved netbook niche for OS X.

Something else that comes into the quality of the components Apple includes in their isn't just reliability. Apple laptops have some of the best touchpads available on the market, they also have very nice keyboards and extremely good screens (Anandtech described last years model as having "the best 11.6-inch display we’ve ever tested").

The premium you pay to get an Apple goes to the entire Apple product. It goes into more reliable parts, it goes into higher quality parts, it goes into better performing parts, it goes into every little thing and every little design decision they make.

And...higher reliability ratings in the end trump claims of quality parts.

It's been a long time since I've seen a truly poor performing touchpad or screen. Both markets have matured far too much for this to be a major problem outside of reliability issues.

If you can't capture it in specs or in reliability, it's not an advantage. And tbh, there is a huge amount of overlap in parts used by ANY manufacturer. Claiming that X brand uses quality parts ignores the reality of the hardware industry, which essentially has to work en masse and sell bits to whoever wants them.

So, I'm confused why you keep repeating this, since it's not an advantage the brand has. It's not a reason to select them over another decent manufacturer.

Let us assume that the specifications and performance were identical. Let us also assume that that all of the hardware in the system was completely identical.

If this were the case, then the price of the two different systems would be similar (subject to manufacturer cycles). This is not the case, and thus I can understand why they are not.

No, that does not follow. Just because something is priced higher does not invariably mean it is better.

I can, right now, google for just about any product and find some companies selling the exact same thing for far, far more than others. Sometimes things are just overpriced.

I feel like I should make a list of statements/claims always made in topics like this and then make a bingo game out of it.

On a semi-related note, is Apple still ranked #1 in customer service? I know they used to be but don't know if they still are.

This entirely depends on who's numbers you believe for customer service. Essentially every company would have you believe their customer service rocks. In the first couple of pages of google results, I found evidence from ostensibly third party surveys that would support basically any computer manufacturer I choose to name as being comfortably on top

Note that a *lot* of these surveys are pretty terribly designed, with pretty horrible systemic bias. I regard the lot of them with not a great deal more trust than I would a random internet poll. The 2011 Tempkin is probably the best of the lot, but apple performs unexceptionally in that. About average for the market.

In particular, I have already said that identical parts sourced under identical conditions will not, by themselves, make any difference between those two manufacturers - it is that you cannot look at any one single component and say that the complete package is better or worse because of that one single component unless that one single component is the one and only difference between both complete packages. The best you can say is "I place a lot of weight on that particular component and that makes it a better complete package for me".

And, if you total up all the components, you HAVE the complete package.

So when Asus trumps mac on the complete package, for cheaper, you have to wonder why the air is so bloody expensive

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-05, 07:37 AM

It's only a few people who are targeting different minor sub-points as if they are the main issue and/or taking elements from one discussion or tangent and applying it to another (i.e. someone said that all netbooks came standard with 2 GB, I simply showed that this was not the case, then suddenly this was focused on like it was the single most important issue I had raised about something else).

First, you have in no way shown that the better performing part is false.

Higher =/= Highest

(FYI "=/=" means "is not equal to".)

But they are no minor sub points. They are your main points. These are the points you keep bringing up and argue in one form or another. My problem has been with your repeated statements about the quality of Mac hardware. You bring it up as a reason for the higher price, and then I and a few others question that because of two reasons:

1. The hardware does indeed seem NOT to be of higher quality than high-quality brands of windows-based laptops and

2. Even if that was the case, the HUGE increase in price does make sense for that reason. A MINOR rise in price, sure, IF that was the case, but...

I do very much know what =/= means, although I would have written it !=.
I don't see how it is relevant to the issue though.

If they are placing 4th place, with such a small gap between all the top contenders, I would say (and have previously on this thread) that this is pretty darn good.

Yes. And I agree. They are a high-quality manufacturer. HOWEVER, and this is important, see above:

The price is still WAY too high for that high a failure rate.
It is also WAY too high for the equipment in it.

That's why we have concluded that you pay for hot air. Just like you can pay several hundred dollars for a design handbag. It is up to you, but at least with the handbags, most women wearing them do not claim "the higher quality is the reason for the high price" but just admit that "they're fashionable / it looks great" as the reason they buy them.

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 07:39 AM

I think the problem here, Rawhide, is that you have yet to come up with any substantive reason why an Apple is somehow so much better than typical PC competitors that it deserves its price point. From my point of view, the only thing Apple offers that others don't is gimmicky design (like the advert where they could put a Macbook Air into an A4 Jiffy bag), but you often have to sacrifice something for all those smooth curves and polished metal (like the aforementioned USB ports).

Basically, your argument boils down to "Macs are better than PCs because I believe they are", which is more akin to a religious belief than anything provable...

I've never claimed that Macs are better than PCs, I've explained the reasons that some people decide that a Mac is the better option for them. I've shown some of the options that Apple choose in the design and how those (often completely overlooked in a direct comparison) changes will add to the price. These differences may not matter to you, which would make the extra expense not worth it to you, or they may, which make would the extra expense worth it to you.

If you pick on each individual element of a complete package one by one, I'm sure you could find that another manufacturer of any manufacturer that has done better than that at some time. My point is that you can't compare that way, you have to look at what a particular consumer needs and pair that with a product that will suit that consumer. The Macs suit a lot of consumers, making that the best product for them. A particular ASUS with Windows PC will suit a lot of other people, making that the best product for them.

They are justified. It's the Publilius Syrus justification, and that's the only important one. People are willing to pay for it, so it is not price gouging. However, Apple is not giving its customers anything tangible over other manufacturers to account for the price difference. Apple purchasers have decided that the name and style is worth a 300% markup on the same performance and quality purchased from someone else.

For the price, people are buying a system that has high quality parts (not just in reliability, but in feel, behaviour and interface, etc.), has gone through a rigorous quality assurance process (from all departments, including software), with various features and inclusions that are not necessarily included as standard (most users won't notice that Apple upgraded all their motherboards to use EFI instead of the old BIOS that PC motherboards still use as standard a while ago, but they did) and a high level of customer service from a brand that they know has consistently delivered these things.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-05, 07:43 AM

For the price, people are buying a system that has high quality parts (not just in reliability, but in feel, behaviour and interface, etc.), has gone through a rigorous quality assurance process (from all departments, including software), with various features and inclusions that are not necessarily included as standard (most users won't notice that Apple upgraded all their motherboards to use EFI instead of the old BIOS that PC motherboards still use as standard a while ago, but they did) and a high level of customer service from a brand that they know has consistently delivered these things.

So...you could go with Asus, get all of those things, and save yourself a pile of money.

Runestar

2011-10-05, 07:45 AM

I think the problem here, Rawhide, is that you have yet to come up with any substantive reason why an Apple is somehow so much better than typical PC competitors that it deserves its price point. From my point of view, the only thing Apple offers that others don't is gimmicky design (like the advert where they could put a Macbook Air into an A4 Jiffy bag), but you often have to sacrifice something for all those smooth curves and polished metal (like the aforementioned USB ports).

I see the premium as being due to the following factors:

1) Excellent customer support. I once had an issue with app store billing me for software I did not download. Sent an email, got a response within hours and the money was refunded to me the very next day. The email was polite and personally crafted. I could not asked for better service.

2) Hardware is beautiful and well-designed. Some may not care, but others do. There may be this "feel good" factor that comes with having a sleek and beautiful imac on your glass table complementing the decor of your room.

3) Hardware, OS and software are all designed by the same company, meaning they are designed to work together in perfect harmony, hence the catchphrase "It just works".

Contrast this with say, a dell computer which comes preinstalled with a dozen other "bloatware" it was probably paid by other companies to include (which indirectly subsidises the cost of its PCs). When you have incompatible software slowing you down or giving you problems on your PC, people tend to think "My PC sucks!" rather than "This software stinks!". Apple avoids that.

4) Apple earns the bulk of its profits from the sale of hardware, which explains the higher margins. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that profits from its apps store is actually quite slim. However, it needs to keep the development of apps tightly controlled to ensure they work properly on its OS and not mar the "apple experience" it has worked so hard to build.

You are right in that I could probably build my own PC for 1/2 the price. However, the thing is that I have friends who faced a lot of problems with this. Either their PCs broke down after a year and had to be replaced, or the mish-mash of hardware from different sources gave them all sorts of issues, and troubleshooting was another headache. It's like playing a fighter; do so only if you know exactly what you are doing. :smalltongue:

Abrexa

2011-10-05, 08:15 AM

1) Excellent customer support. I once had an issue with app store billing me for software I did not download. Sent an email, got a response within hours and the money was refunded to me the very next day. The email was polite and personally crafted. I could not asked for better service.

In my experience, isn't that standard, not 'excellent'?

3) Hardware, OS and software are all designed by the same company, meaning they are designed to work together in perfect harmony, hence the catchphrase "It just works".

To me, it means it won't work with anyone else's...

I looked at Macs once, gave up when I found out almost all ports are proprietary and it you want to use such dumb things as USB (instead of Firewire) and VGA (instead of display port) you need to buy 49$ connecting cable for each port you might want to use (or USB hub to expand that lone USB port) and carry them with you...

Contrast this with say, a dell computer which comes preinstalled with a dozen other "bloatware" it was probably paid by other companies to include (which indirectly subsidises the cost of its PCs).

Uninstall? Use system recovery when you buy PC?

When you have incompatible software slowing you down or giving you problems on your PC, people tend to think "My PC sucks!" rather than "This software stinks!". Apple avoids that.

I agree, people seem to be dumb like that.

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 08:15 AM

So, while the 350 still isn't the equal of the i5...it's a helluva lot closer than it was made out to be.

No, it wasn't. Closer than an Atom would be, but it was never made out to be as bad as an Atom.

And yes, you can get a cheaper laptop that absolutely crushes the Air price AND performance wise...comparing against a similar netbook helps negate the "but it's smaller!" argument, and shows just how vast the price gulf is between mac and the rest of the world.

Larger laptops will be able to be faster for less. The Macbook Air is netbook sized with a larger laptop performance. It cannot be directly compared to either the budget netbooks or larger laptops.

I am literally unable to find a study that bothers to even put Mac on the chart for servers. Compared to *nix and Windows, they are about as significant as a rounding error.

I did find the 2001 numbers. They shipped 1,525 servers. Like, Mac, as a whole. That is "basically irrelevant". I don't know if they counted servers they shipped internally, but if so, it gets even more hilarious how few people actually want Mac servers.

So, clearly, the amount of major companies that are all mac(or close) is pretty much nil.

Hey look, a Mac Mini dedicated hosting company. (http://iweb.com/dedicated/mac/) Found on the first search.

It does not fit any known market.

I guess selling well enough for Apple to keep making them and for successive generations to be produced means that there is no market for them. :smallconfused:

The market basically does not exist in any other company, because it's cannibalized by the much more popular netbooks.

I propose that the Air market only exists because Mac doesn't sell netbooks. People WANT a netbook like thing, it's just that in the OS X lineup, it's the only real option like what they want.

Perhaps if there were cheaper netbooks in the Apple lineup, the Air wouldn't sell as well, but that is just speculation. It does have considerable features over budget netbooks that many people have looked at and decided are worth the cost for them. As has been pointed out, the highest quality screen that Anandtech has seen, high quality (multi touch) touchpads, nice keyboard, Thunderbolt port, etc.

True, but unpowered hubs are also not fantastic. Power draw is a factor.

Even worse, many USB hard drives that are entirely mobile rely on dual USB jacks to get enough power. And of course, an unpowered hub really isn't going to help with that. You basically can't effectively use such things...and these are devices designed to be portable!

It is an option that adds little to the weight or size. But it is something that could be a deciding or contributing factor in their decision not to buy one.

Granted, but by the time you're adding a few adapters, a usb hub, and a cd drive, you're in a weight and space class competitive with a larger laptop. It's not as though full sized laptops are really that big and heavy anymore...

You're adding the CD drive, by far the largest and heaviest bit, to the budget netbook anyway.

The niche is arguably only the underserved netbook niche for OS X.

The niche is for a higher quality netbook sized laptop with OS X and/or Windows via BootCamp

And...higher reliability ratings in the end trump claims of quality parts.

Apple is consistently amongst the highest.

It's been a long time since I've seen a truly poor performing touchpad or screen. Both markets have matured far too much for this to be a major problem outside of reliability issues.

I have seen and used some terrible ones, even on higher end systems, recently. And I have also seen some screens that, while decent, were definitely not as good as others in comparison.

If you can't capture it in specs or in reliability, it's not an advantage. And tbh, there is a huge amount of overlap in parts used by ANY manufacturer. Claiming that X brand uses quality parts ignores the reality of the hardware industry, which essentially has to work en masse and sell bits to whoever wants them.

So, I'm confused why you keep repeating this, since it's not an advantage the brand has. It's not a reason to select them over another decent manufacturer.

They have, they are consistently amongst the highest.

I keep repeating this because people keep bringing it up. Apple doesn't just buy parts from any manufacturer, they select quality manufacturers and ask for their best parts. They are not the only ones to do this, but they do.

No, that does not follow. Just because something is priced higher does not invariably mean it is better.

I can, right now, google for just about any product and find some companies selling the exact same thing for far, far more than others. Sometimes things are just overpriced.

This is not what I said. I did not say that a higher price makes a higher quality product, I said that a higher quality product will make a higher price.

And, if you total up all the components, you HAVE the complete package.

The individual hardware components does not equal the complete package. Everything including all of the individual hardware components makes a complete package, the individual hardware components are just part of the picture.

So when Asus trumps mac on the complete package, for cheaper, you have to wonder why the air is so bloody expensive

They haven't.

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-05, 08:23 AM

I see the premium as being due to the following factors:

1) Excellent customer support. I once had an issue with app store billing me for software I did not download. Sent an email, got a response within hours and the money was refunded to me the very next day. The email was polite and personally crafted. I could not asked for better service.

2) Hardware is beautiful and well-designed. Some may not care, but others do. There may be this "feel good" factor that comes with having a sleek and beautiful imac on your glass table complementing the decor of your room.

3) Hardware, OS and software are all designed by the same company, meaning they are designed to work together in perfect harmony, hence the catchphrase "It just works".

Contrast this with say, a dell computer which comes preinstalled with a dozen other "bloatware" it was probably paid by other companies to include (which indirectly subsidises the cost of its PCs). When you have incompatible software slowing you down or giving you problems on your PC, people tend to think "My PC sucks!" rather than "This software stinks!". Apple avoids that.

4) Apple earns the bulk of its profits from the sale of hardware, which explains the higher margins. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that profits from its apps store is actually quite slim. However, it needs to keep the development of apps tightly controlled to ensure they work properly on its OS and not mar the "apple experience" it has worked so hard to build.

You are right in that I could probably build my own PC for 1/2 the price. However, the thing is that I have friends who faced a lot of problems with this. Either their PCs broke down after a year and had to be replaced, or the mish-mash of hardware from different sources gave them all sorts of issues, and troubleshooting was another headache. It's like playing a fighter; do so only if you know exactly what you are doing. :smalltongue:

1) Most quality manufacturers has good or great customer support. It's part of the "package" of a high-end brand. I use ASUS as an example, since I know of it first hand.

2) Can't argue there. At least if you like their look. I do, but it is not that more beautiful that I would pick it because of it. And sometimes they go astray (like the USB ports (again) or the idiotic choice of a glass back on iPhone 4 and 4S). Now I favor many different looks; I am actually very fond of my ASUS G74SX because it looks like a military stealth vehicle (http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/pics/1e12505dab.jpg). It is a very efficient and brutal design, quite the opposite of what Apple does, but I love it.

3) Different philosophies. Windows has to work on a gazillion hardware configurations. But if it didn't, we wouldn't have the world we are living in. And besides, ASUS, at least make their own hardware, so they can, just like Apple, make sure all parts play nice.

4) Do Apple make a profit on their computers again? Not a snide comment, I am genuinely curious; last thing I saw they were making a very small profit or even loosing money on the computers and the iPod / iPhone is what keeps making the company it's money.

The point is that you don't HAVE to build your computer to save money compared to a Mac. You can buy the most expensive computer available in a given market segment, and you will still save money. THAT is the point.

The only point this price comparison is a bit iffy is, as we have learned here, the Netbook market, since Apple is alone in their segment as an extremely expensive and high performance "netbook". No other company has deemed it worth to compete with a directly equivalent model since there isn't enough customers that wants something like it.

I keep repeating this because people keep bringing it up. Apple doesn't just buy parts from any manufacturer, they select quality manufacturers and ask for their best parts. They are not the only ones to do this, but they do.

...

They haven't.

Yes, they do. But as you say, it doesn't make them unique, nor does it give their computers a real edge in quality or reliability.

...And yes they have.

thorgrim29

2011-10-05, 08:27 AM

Thing is, reading all your messages Rawhide, I'm not seeing anything a rational person in possession of all the facts would want to pay more then a 20%, maybe 30% markup for, and certainly nothing that should cost more then that to the company. So, from what I understand, it would in fact justify buying a desktop from Apple if these points are important enough to you. It still doesn't justify the completely ridiculous prices on their laptops and netbooks.

Abrexa

2011-10-05, 08:29 AM

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-05, 08:32 AM

Isn't there an Alienware netbook? :smallconfused:

I didn't know that. I try to avoid Alienware / Dell (my experience is that they tend to have too inefficient cooling for their performance). Plus the price thing.

Talya

2011-10-05, 08:36 AM

If you pick on each individual element of a complete package one by one, I'm sure you could find that another manufacturer of any manufacturer that has done better than that at some time. My point is that you can't compare that way, you have to look at what a particular consumer needs and pair that with a product that will suit that consumer. The Macs suit a lot of consumers, making that the best product for them. A particular ASUS with Windows PC will suit a lot of other people, making that the best product for them.

The thing is, nobody has been able to show a single area in which a 17" Macbook has an advantage over an Asus gaming notebook.

For the record, i can actually give a couple:

-Battery Life. Asus rightly decided anyone interested in gaming on a 17" notebook is NOT overly concerned with battery life. The battery on the G73/G74 series is basically a 100 minute uninteruptable power supply, that's it.

-Size. The Asus is much bigger than the Apple -- which is also why it can use higher performing components and keep them cooler. There's a lot of empty space inside a G73 case that alows for airflow. The G74 is even larger, at 18.4".

The thing for both of those advantages, however, is that you're already buying a 17.3" or 18.4" notebook. You're NOT pulling them out on the subway, or spending a day sitting in Starbucks with them. They are desktop replacements. Their portability is simply to allow you to switch actual desks. If battery life and portability is your priority, you should probably go with smaller devices (this goes for the Macbook, as well.)

For the price, people are buying a system that has high quality parts (not just in reliability, but in feel, behaviour and interface, etc.), has gone through a rigorous quality assurance process (from all departments, including software), with various features and inclusions that are not necessarily included as standard (most users won't notice that Apple upgraded all their motherboards to use EFI instead of the old BIOS that PC motherboards still use as standard a while ago, but they did) and a high level of customer service from a brand that they know has consistently delivered these things.

You're under the mistaken impression that somehow apple is the only company that puts that entire package of "rigorous quality assurance" into place. They are not. Taken holisticly, apple does not offer more for their price premium. Their devices are no more reliable, hardware or software-wise, than other premium manufacturers. You've got a dubious point on EFI - because the users don't only not notice, it does not help them any. Extensible Firmware Interface doesn't provide the user any advantage, so why is it a factor? The main purpose of it seems to be to give the vendors control over their products and take it away from the user, anyway. (See Windows 8.)

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 08:48 AM

You're under the mistaken impression that somehow apple is the only company that puts that entire package of "rigorous quality assurance" into place. They are not. Taken holisticly, apple does not offer more for their price premium. Their devices are no more reliable, hardware or software-wise, than other premium manufacturers. You've got a dubious point on EFI - because the users don't only not notice, it does not help them any. Extensible Firmware Interface doesn't provide the user any advantage, so why is it a factor? The main purpose of it seems to be to give the vendors control over their products and take it away from the user, anyway. (See Windows 8.)

No, I'm not under the impression that Apple is the only one that does that. I have also been clear about that. They are just one of several companies.

Though, they are, however, the only ones that make both the operating system and the computers. They are in a unique position to ensure that everything "just works".

EFI doesn't directly affect average Joe Bloe directly. Average users will never touch or notice it. I mearly listed it as one example of the reasons for the higher price (one rather minor example, before someone claims that I'm somehow claiming that this single difference justifies a "massive" price increase).

Tyndmyr

2011-10-05, 08:49 AM

Larger laptops will be able to be faster for less. The Macbook Air is netbook sized with a larger laptop performance. It cannot be directly compared to either the budget netbooks or larger laptops.

So, you're basically refusing to compare it to ANYTHING.

That's not an entirely realistic scenario.

Hey look, a Mac Mini dedicated hosting company. (http://iweb.com/dedicated/mac/) Found on the first search.

Yes. My point is that businesses using mac are statistically insignificant. They are not a relevant portion of the market. So discussions about things that pose problems for them is not really something of importance.

And, as a side note, it is pretty common to install an OS on a box other than the one that ships with it, for hosting companies. That is not a problem at all.

Perhaps if there were cheaper netbooks in the Apple lineup, the Air wouldn't sell as well, but that is just speculation. It does have considerable features over budget netbooks that many people have looked at and decided are worth the cost for them. As has been pointed out, the highest quality screen that Anandtech has seen, high quality (multi touch) touchpads, nice keyboard, Thunderbolt port, etc.

Multitouch was invented by IBM, I believe. Despite the advertising and failed attempt to trademark it, it's not unique apple tech. Incidentally, all Asus laptops also have multitouch. For the ones that didn't come with it, you download a driver, and you're in business. This is not unique to Asus either. That said, most people frankly don't care if the touchpad has multitouch, because we have two buttons, and thus, don't need it. If you wanted to use it though, you could.

Nice keyboard is not a unique thing either.

Nice screens are also not unique to Macs.

Nobody cares about things like BIOS vs EFI. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. 99%+ of customers don't care about technical details of how it works, and even people like me who are curious about the innards tend to not purchase just because of use of non standard tech to get basically the same result.

Thunderbolt is an obscure port that doesn't actually have a significant amount of peripherals made for it. Instead, we have ports for industry standard interfaces. This sounds like a loss, not a win.

You're adding the CD drive, by far the largest and heaviest bit, to the budget netbook anyway.

Which has a smaller form factor than the air to begin with. When comparing against desktop replacements, the CD drive is included. Either way, you're not winning.

Apple is consistently amongst the highest.

Being a bit above average in reliability does not justify having prices higher than the absolute highest in reliability..

I keep repeating this because people keep bringing it up. Apple doesn't just buy parts from any manufacturer, they select quality manufacturers and ask for their best parts. They are not the only ones to do this, but they do.

That's called...being a computer company? Nobody asks for bad parts.

Phishfood

2011-10-05, 08:50 AM

You are right in that I could probably build my own PC for 1/2 the price. However, the thing is that I have friends who faced a lot of problems with this. Either their PCs broke down after a year and had to be replaced, or the mish-mash of hardware from different sources gave them all sorts of issues, and troubleshooting was another headache. It's like playing a fighter; do so only if you know exactly what you are doing. :smalltongue:

Yeah, I've seen this a few times and experienced it personally. To the point that my last PC was prebuilt because it was less hassle. I fix computers all day, takes away the fun of building your own. One problem I had was when a power supply threw a wobbly and took out the board. I got the PSU replaced under the warranty, but they didn't want to hear about the board.

I'm with Rawhide on this though. A lot of these arguments seem to be about the most petty parts. "I don't like the trackpad, therefore apple suck" or "The minidisplay port needs extra cables to work apple suck"

As for price, I've specced up a dell laptop to be as close as I can get to the apple macbook 17".

Dell: £1,050 inc VAT ex shipping.
Apple: £2,099 inc VAT and shipping.

Ok, so ~£1,000 to account for.
* Dell laptop only has 2.0GHz CPU not the 2.1 in the mac
* Dell only has 500GB HDD not the 750GB in the apple.
* The mac os comes with a lot more than windows.
* Backlit Keyboard
* Dual graphics card - one for battery life, one for performance
* mac is lighter
* no specs for the laptop I'm looking at, but the transfomer on my mac is much more energy efficient than the one for the nearest dell laptop.
* Magsafe power lead.
* Firewire port.
* SPDIF output
* mini display port can connect to anything, dell only seems to have HDMI out
* dell laptop gets slammed for having a bad display
* no mention of expected battery life on the dell, guessing it won't beat the 8 hours for the mac.
* mac looks a lot nicer
* express card expansion slot

Does this add up to £1,000 worth of difference? no, there is still an apple markup. Thing is, at least in this case, the mac is a superior laptop.

Of course, its hard to say for sure because there are plenty of specs that I only have one value for or things I don't have any idea about - which laptop will last longer? which one is tougher? Its far from a cut and dried solution, but it doesn't matter. In the end its a case of the right tool for the job. Both are equally valid options to me.

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 09:05 AM

So, you're basically refusing to compare it to ANYTHING.

That's not an entirely realistic scenario.

No, I'm saying that you can't make a direct comparison unless you have something to compare to it directly. At best, you can say that for the needs of x market, it doesn't fit that market.

Yes. My point is that businesses using mac are statistically insignificant. They are not a relevant portion of the market. So discussions about things that pose problems for them is not really something of importance.

And my point was that business use was significant enough. I never claimed it was huge, merely significant enough.

And, as a side note, it is pretty common to install an OS on a box other than the one that ships with it, for hosting companies. That is not a problem at all.

I don't believe a hosting company would ever attempt to install and market an OS X install on a non Mac box. The loss in quality assurance would be far to great for the business bottom line.

Multitouch was invented by IBM, I believe. Despite the advertising and failed attempt to trademark it, it's not unique apple tech. Incidentally, all Asus laptops also have multitouch. For the ones that didn't come with it, you download a driver, and you're in business. This is not unique to Asus either. That said, most people frankly don't care if the touchpad has multitouch, because we have two buttons, and thus, don't need it. If you wanted to use it though, you could.

Nice keyboard is not a unique thing either.

Nice screens are also not unique to Macs.

They are not unique to Apple, and I have repeatedly said that I know this, but they do have them when many other PC manufacturers make sacrifices.

Nobody cares about things like BIOS vs EFI. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. 99%+ of customers don't care about technical details of how it works, and even people like me who are curious about the innards tend to not purchase just because of use of non standard tech to get basically the same result.

See my previous post.

Thunderbolt is an obscure port that doesn't actually have a significant amount of peripherals made for it. Instead, we have ports for industry standard interfaces. This sounds like a loss, not a win.

Thunderbolt is a brand new port that is just being introduced. There are devices out there on the market already and Intel is pushing for it to gain widespread adoption. I definitely don't see this as an "obscure" port, merely a young one.

Which has a smaller form factor than the air to begin with. When comparing against desktop replacements, the CD drive is included. Either way, you're not winning.

You weren't comparing it to desktop replacements. You were comparing it to similar sized budget netbooks, which are, strangely enough, similar sized.

Being a bit above average in reliability does not justify having prices higher than the absolute highest in reliability..

Being amongst the highest in terms of reliability, especially when the difference is so small, does justify part of the price. Not all of it, that comes from other areas.

That's called...being a computer company? Nobody asks for bad parts.

Perhaps this will be surprising to you, but yes they do. They don't say "give me bad parts", they say "give me the cheapest parts, even if they haven't been through the same level of quality assurance or didn't test as well" and they'll say that to the cheapest manufacturers they can.

Talya

2011-10-05, 09:06 AM

The Succubus

2011-10-05, 09:33 AM

I'd like to share a revealation I've just had with you.

I have a Powerbook.

I have an iMac.

Therefore, I have a pear of Apples.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-05, 09:47 AM

No, I'm saying that you can't make a direct comparison unless you have something to compare to it directly. At best, you can say that for the needs of x market, it doesn't fit that market.

See, the thing is, by being sufficiently pedantic, you can use this to say that no two computers can be compared against each other. Of COURSE each computer is going to be a little different.

You can still compare them.

And my point was that business use was significant enough. I never claimed it was huge, merely significant enough.

When you're fighting to get to the 1% level, you are not significant.

I don't believe a hosting company would ever attempt to install and market an OS X install on a non Mac box. The loss in quality assurance would be far to great for the business bottom line.

More to the point, I don't know why a hosting company would ever use an OS X install on the bare hardware.

Why not just use ESX, and then, for the few mac customers, toss up a VM?

So, it's still a non issue.

Thunderbolt is a brand new port that is just being introduced. There are devices out there on the market already and Intel is pushing for it to gain widespread adoption. I definitely don't see this as an "obscure" port, merely a young one.

It's both young and obscure. It may one day overcome this.

Pretty much the only people on board with it are Intel and Apple. That's not much in the device market. Many interfaces with wider support have gone absolutely nowhere. Either outcome is possible. If it gains widespread support, then yes, PCs will have it.

You weren't comparing it to desktop replacements. You were comparing it to similar sized budget netbooks, which are, strangely enough, similar sized.

Take your pick. Either one will end up killing it in price. A netbook will have slightly lower speed, while killing it in everything else, and a desktop replacement will have slightly higher weight/form factor, while killing it in everything else.

And if all you really, really care about is form factor and weight, alienware kills the hell out of it.

There's no win compare for the Air. Ever. You have to constantly say "No, it turns out THIS is more important" in every comparison, for different values of THIS.

Being amongst the highest in terms of reliability, especially when the difference is so small, does justify part of the price. Not all of it, that comes from other areas.

No. Asus was the comparison, and Asus is more reliable. That does not justify mac being more expensive than Asus at all.

You get to use it as a justification for why you're more expensive than say, eMachines, but feh...everyone does.

Perhaps this will be surprising to you, but yes they do. They don't say "give me bad parts", they say "give me the cheapest parts, even if they haven't been through the same level of quality assurance or didn't test as well" and they'll say that to the cheapest manufacturers they can.

And if that never matters to the reliability metrics, it's irrelevant. If it does, well...that's already included in the reliability comparison. Quality is measured in specs, Reliability rates cover part failure.

Talya

2011-10-05, 10:06 AM

Perhaps this will be surprising to you, but yes they do. They don't say "give me bad parts", they say "give me the cheapest parts, even if they haven't been through the same level of quality assurance or didn't test as well" and they'll say that to the cheapest manufacturers they can.

Somehow that explanation doesn't seem very credible when comparing the parts in a G74 to a Macbook.

Phishfood

2011-10-05, 12:39 PM

Phishfood:
Try to spec a 17" Macbook Pro Apple up to this (http://www.excaliberpc.com/607356/asus-g74sx-a1-17.3-notebook.html), and then check the price. Which one is the superior notebook? Which one costs more?

Then note that Asus consistently gets higher reliability ratings than Apple does.

I'll give you a preview:

The Macbook ends up with
-2.3Ghz i7 CPU instead of 2.6Ghz
-8GB RAM instead of 12GB.
-750GB HDD instead of 1.5TB
-a 1GB radeon 6750 instead of a 3GB GeForce GTX 560 (I prefer AMD video chips, but in this case, the Nvidia one is several times faster.)
-A price of $3000 instead of $1600.

I'm confused. The link you posted cites a 2.0GHz CPU, the default macbook pro cites 2.1GHz. I'll give you the RAM, HDD and GPU...

BUT

since we are talking about cost as a major issue here, why don't we spec up those things as a desktop. Betting it comes out cheaper.

I'll then respond that my macbook 14,000mAh battery beats your 8 Cell, 5200 mAh battery. My macbook is 3lb lighter. No optical out. No magsafe power lead. How do the displays actually compare in quality? the screen on a mac is pretty damn good.

So, yes. That asus would be faster and much better for playing games on. It would be no good for watching DVDs on a 5 hour train journey. Better is a very relative term. You are looking at a very specific desktop replacement gaming laptop, something that macbooks have never tried to be. Maybe that is what YOU want, its not what I want. It might well not be what other people want. I also think its unfair to compare laptops with different intended purposes. For the price of the asus or the mac we could buy a handful of netbooks with ubuntu on, but that would be insane.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-05, 12:51 PM

I'm confused. The link you posted cites a 2.0GHz CPU, the default macbook pro cites 2.1GHz. I'll give you the RAM, HDD and GPU...

BUT

since we are talking about cost as a major issue here, why don't we spec up those things as a desktop. Betting it comes out cheaper.

Oh, if we go desktop to desktop, PCs win out easily. Not by as large a margin as with notebooks, but still by plenty.

I'll then respond that my macbook 14,000mAh battery beats your 8 Cell, 5200 mAh battery. My macbook is 3lb lighter. No optical out. No magsafe power lead. How do the displays actually compare in quality? the screen on a mac is pretty damn good.

Er, thunderbolt is not an optical out. It's digital too. So far I as I can tell, there's no optical out on the mac.

Screens get the same resolution. Both perform well in real life, and can be considered quite decent displays.

Magsafe power lead? Safe breakaway systems are available if you care about them. If it's a problem, it should show up in the warranty repair rate, no? I've tripped over my asus cable before. They pop out fairly nicely usually(and the time I hit it from an odd angle, it survived the sudden table to ground trip with ease), and being round, they don't require any attention to plug in.

Battery and weight is better than a high end gaming laptop, true. But if those were your primary needs, you would not be looking at either of these machines.

So, yes. That asus would be faster and much better for playing games on. It would be no good for watching DVDs on a 5 hour train journey. Better is a very relative term. You are looking at a very specific desktop replacement gaming laptop, something that macbooks have never tried to be. Maybe that is what YOU want, its not what I want. It might well not be what other people want. I also think its unfair to compare laptops with different intended purposes. For the price of the asus or the mac we could buy a handful of netbooks with ubuntu on, but that would be insane.

Look, for the price of the Mac, I can(and have) own both a netbook AND a desktop replacement laptop. Each of which is better at it's role than the mac is.

tyckspoon

2011-10-05, 05:48 PM

The only point this price comparison is a bit iffy is, as we have learned here, the Netbook market, since Apple is alone in their segment as an extremely expensive and high performance "netbook". No other company has deemed it worth to compete with a directly equivalent model since there isn't enough customers that wants something like it.

There is actually a similar market in Windows-based laptops- high performance ultraportables, mostly aimed at the business traveler market. HP does/did make some (the EliteBook and ProBook lines), Samsung has some, Lenovo actually made a lot of their rep on them back when IBM still did personal computers (the.. IdeaPads, I think, is the line name?) Sony does some similar items, although theirs are at least half prestige/"look what we can build" things and priced accordingly. It's a fairly niche market, but there are enough people who need exactly that for manufacturers other than Apple to provide them.. and the Air is actually price-competitive with them. The main difference is Apple is about the only company that sells that kind of system as a standard and advertised item; for the other manufacturers, you have to specifically look up that style of notebook.

Rawhide

2011-10-05, 07:06 PM

First, one thing I want to be clear about. I have never claimed that "Macs are better"*. I'm not arguing that Macs are superior in every respect for every consumer and that "some people just fail to see it"**. I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with the Apple products, that they have reasons for the price, and that there are (highly reasonable and logical) reasons people would choose an Apple product over another option.

*Unless you count my first post, which I don't, because that was merely a shorthand way of writing that this is why many people prefer the Apple model.

**No one has claimed I'm saying that with those exact words, I've just seen them elsewhere and highlighting that this is not what I think in case some people assume that it is.

I would also like to point out that we are talking about two totally seperate issues that have been confused and mangled together, reasons for price and "is this product right for me". Apple products are often more expensive, but it is not "merely profit margin" as has been claimed. This price difference, as well as the other differences, will make one option or the other more attractive to different people.

See, the thing is, by being sufficiently pedantic, you can use this to say that no two computers can be compared against each other. Of COURSE each computer is going to be a little different.

I'm not being pedantic. I'm asking you to compare oranges to oranges. You wouldn't buy an orange instead of an apple to put in an apple pie. You would however, decide that you want to buy an orange instead of an apple because that is what you would prefer to eat right now.

You cannot compare the two and say that the manufacturer of one of the two products, which are catering for entirely different markets, is therefore inferior. You can compare the specifications, features, and benefits and say that this doesn't do what you need or does more than you need for too much and is thus inappropriate for you.

You can still compare them.

See above for how you can and cannot compare them. This is something I have always been clear about.

When you're fighting to get to the 1% level, you are not significant.

I don't know the exact percentages (I don't even know why this is still an issue being discussed, it was never a major point of anything), but it is significant enough in that businesses are using them, Apple is making money from it and Apple are supporting them.

More to the point, I don't know why a hosting company would ever use an OS X install on the bare hardware.

You may not, but they do. Your lack of knowledge doesn't change a thing.

Why not just use ESX, and then, for the few mac customers, toss up a VM?

So, it's still a non issue.

Because, after investigating the the options, that is not what they wanted to do. It is far from the "non issue" that you claim.

It's both young and obscure. It may one day overcome this.

Pretty much the only people on board with it are Intel and Apple. That's not much in the device market. Many interfaces with wider support have gone absolutely nowhere. Either outcome is possible. If it gains widespread support, then yes, PCs will have it.

All of the articles I have read predict impending widespread adoption. It should also be noted that Apple was also the catalyst for widespread USB adoption (no, they didn't invent it or have it first, but they were the main reason behind its adoption by consumers). I'm not speculating on whether USB would have failed or if it would have still succeeded eventually, but taken much longer to do so, but the fact remains that it was Apple that gave USB the boost that it needed to succeed at that time.

Take your pick. Either one will end up killing it in price. A netbook will have slightly lower speed, while killing it in everything else, and a desktop replacement will have slightly higher weight/form factor, while killing it in everything else.

First, I disagree with your statements "while killing it in everything else". Nothing you have said has come close to showing that anything kills anything else in "everything else" and others have shown that it definitely does not in certain areas.

And if all you really, really care about is form factor and weight, alienware kills the hell out of it.

This is a better comparison, but it's still for a different market. Alienware are targeting Windows gamers. This no doubt makes it much better for those people, but not necessarily for others.

Alienware has absolutely shockingly terrible touchpads - I know, I have one. The Air is much thinner and is almost half the weight. These are two elements already that add to the price and provide reasons for people to prefer the Air over the Alienware.

There's no win compare for the Air. Ever. You have to constantly say "No, it turns out THIS is more important" in every comparison, for different values of THIS.

I've never claimed that the Air, or any Apple product, is universally better than the competition or that any one feature in the Air, or any Apple product, is universally better than the competition. In fact, I have been clear that this is not the case. When someone looks at different options, they look at the complete product and decide what's best for them. Different people have different needs, and this is what you're failing to acknowledge. The complete package of the Air is better than the complete package of a budget ASUS netbook for certain people, while the budget ASUS netbook's complete package is better than the Air for certain other people because they place different weights on different elements of the package.

No. Asus was the comparison, and Asus is more reliable. That does not justify mac being more expensive than Asus at all.

You get to use it as a justification for why you're more expensive than say, eMachines, but feh...everyone does.

ASUS was never the comparison in that statement. The comparison was that of Apple to all of the PC providers. This comparison showed that Apple, like a select few PC providers, places high value on the reliability of the system.

And if that never matters to the reliability metrics, it's irrelevant. If it does, well...that's already included in the reliability comparison. Quality is measured in specs, Reliability rates cover part failure.

It does matter and it does show. Apple is consistently amongst the highest.

---

I'd like to share a revealation I've just had with you.

I have a Powerbook.

I have an iMac.

Therefore, I have a pear of Apples.

/thread

---

Phishfood:
Try to spec a 17" Macbook Pro Apple up to this (http://www.excaliberpc.com/607356/asus-g74sx-a1-17.3-notebook.html), and then check the price. Which one is the superior notebook? Which one costs more?

Then note that Asus consistently gets higher reliability ratings than Apple does.

I'll give you a preview:

The Macbook ends up with
-2.3Ghz i7 CPU instead of 2.6Ghz
-8GB RAM instead of 12GB.
-750GB HDD instead of 1.5TB
-a 1GB radeon 6750 instead of a 3GB GeForce GTX 560 (I prefer AMD video chips, but in this case, the Nvidia one is several times faster.)
-A price of $3000 instead of $1600.

As Phishfood has mentioned, better is a relative term. As you yourself have stated, the Apple Macbooks provide several benefits you don't consider important for your needs. As I've mentioned, product cycles can have a huge impact on the price comparisons.

You've taken a model not designed for the purpose you want and tried to make it suit the purpose you want. Is it as good? No. Is it as cheap? No. Would I recommend it to you over your alternative option for your intended purpose? Definitely not.

Somehow that explanation doesn't seem very credible when comparing the parts in a G74 to a Macbook.

It is also worth noting that ASUS are in a relatively unique position here too, one that even Apple does not have, in that they were long running high quality component part manufacturers for the entire PC industry that have expanded into the full system sector. They can reduce costs dramatically by providing themselves with high quality parts.

This can make their products much cheaper while still being of high quality. This will make the quality level that Apple wishes to maintain comparatively more expensive for Apple. This means that ASUS can indeed be better value for the consumer while Apple has to charge more to maintain the same level.

Ranger Mattos

2011-10-05, 07:23 PM

The problem is, other companies provide all but one of these benefits without the cost premium for them, and that one benefit can be given a cost (What does it cost to go buy OSX? $90 on Amazon.com, apparently. Let's even be generous and assume that because any separately purchased OSX is going to be an "upgrade" version, the actual cost for it is more like $180.) For that to be an advantage, you have to want OSX, of course. AND you have to not want Windows, because then you have to buy it anyway. So let's ignore the OS.

Apart from the OS, the only other thing apple has that none of these other notebooks have, is one that I believe is the primary thing you pay for when you buy an apple product.

http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/silver-apple-logo.png

That is the single largest cost of any Apple product. It is one of the most brilliant, successful marketing campaigns of all time. The thing is, someone like me who actually prefers the taste of a cheaper Tim Horton's coffee to a grande at Starbucks might not be the target customer base.

IIRC, you can get OS X from Apple's website for $30, so that's even more you're spending just for the apple logo.

Yes I know this was from a page ago, but I just wanted to point it out.

Talya

2011-10-05, 07:58 PM

I'm going to bow out of this thread out of respect to Apple's late founder.

Phishfood

2011-10-06, 05:03 AM

Look, for the price of the Mac, I can(and have) own both a netbook AND a desktop replacement laptop. Each of which is better at it's role than the mac is.

That is an incredibly sweeping statement. I'd like you to take either of those machines and do what I do with my macbook, here are 2 typical days for me.

1)
* Bring macbook to work.
* Connect to room 17 projector via VGA.
* Connect to room 22 projector via DVI.
* Take it to parents house
* Connect to their TV via HDMI and stream a film off lovefilm.

2)
* Go on a 5 hour journey with no power and use it for those 5 hours to transfer pictures from my camera and sort them.*

I'd like to see either of those devices do both of those. Not to mention I love my firewire HDD. Or that the DR machine is 50% heavier and bulkier.

* My PC needs the special Pentax software to read the RAW files, the mac not only detected the camera first time but opens the RAW files with native software. Not to mention iPhoto is one of the best things ever.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-06, 05:27 AM

That is an incredibly sweeping statement. I'd like you to take either of those machines and do what I do with my macbook, here are 2 typical days for me.

1)
* Bring macbook to work.
* Connect to room 17 projector via VGA.
* Connect to room 22 projector via DVI.
* Take it to parents house
* Connect to their TV via HDMI and stream a film off lovefilm.

2)
* Go on a 5 hour journey with no power and use it for those 5 hours to transfer pictures from my camera and sort them.*

I'd like to see either of those devices do both of those. Not to mention I love my firewire HDD. Or that the DR machine is 50% heavier and bulkier.

* My PC needs the special Pentax software to read the RAW files, the mac not only detected the camera first time but opens the RAW files with native software. Not to mention iPhoto is one of the best things ever.

The aforementioned $440 Eee can do all those things with a simple VGA-DVI adapter(the most common of video adapters). That's not a particularly demanding list.

Granted, in the US, we use netflix instead of lovefilm, but it's basically the same thing.

First, one thing I want to be clear about. I have never claimed that "Macs are better"*. I'm not arguing that Macs are superior in every respect for every consumer and that "some people just fail to see it"**. I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with the Apple products, that they have reasons for the price, and that there are (highly reasonable and logical) reasons people would choose an Apple product over another option.

Right, right, we're arguing over if the price premium is justified. I believe that it's really not, and thus, people who go shopping for the most cost effective computer end up buying PCs. And people who go shopping for the most cost effective mac end up with a mac.

It's cause of the OS X = buy a mac assumption. It's not a crazy assumption, mind you, but it's certainly pretty common.

I would also like to point out that we are talking about two totally seperate issues that have been confused and mangled together, reasons for price and "is this product right for me". Apple products are often more expensive, but it is not "merely profit margin" as has been claimed. This price difference, as well as the other differences, will make one option or the other more attractive to different people.

I don't care if the cost comes from extra R&D, profit, or tequila and hookers. As a customer, the only thing I really care about is $$/value I get. I don't specifically care what their profit margin is unless I'm an investor.

I'm not being pedantic. I'm asking you to compare oranges to oranges. You wouldn't buy an orange instead of an apple to put in an apple pie. You would however, decide that you want to buy an orange instead of an apple because that is what you would prefer to eat right now.

You cannot compare the two and say that the manufacturer of one of the two products, which are catering for entirely different markets, is therefore inferior. You can compare the specifications, features, and benefits and say that this doesn't do what you need or does more than you need for too much and is thus inappropriate for you.

You can most certainly compare laptops aimed at subtly different markets. Sometimes the conclusion is that one is only suitable within a very specific niche.

In this case, the Air seems to fit the niche of "wants OS X on a highly portable laptop" and "doesn't want to install it himself". That seems to be the main reason people buy them.

I don't know the exact percentages (I don't even know why this is still an issue being discussed, it was never a major point of anything), but it is significant enough in that businesses are using them, Apple is making money from it and Apple are supporting them.

You brought it up from the standpoint of businesses not wishing to install OS X themselves. I pointed out that from a business standpoint, OS X is basically a non issue for anything beyond the very, very small size(home business scale, which is basically part of the regular PC market).

Also, your claim that apple is making money from this business is entirely unsupported. The entire computer sector(about 3 million per QUARTER), is utterly dwarfed in profits by ipods, iphones, etc. The amount of servers they sell is clearly insufficient to generate any real profit. While the numbers of them isn't considered enough to report on, the one year I could find numbers for(about 1500 servers), it's hard to imagine them doing very well on such numbers. Either they WOULD have to mark up the hardware much more significantly than other server manufacturers, or relative overhead will likely kill them.

In comparison, Microsoft's Azure division alone orders tens of thousands of servers from Dell per year. So, a research division of one company's yearly orders from one supplier dwarfs all the apple servers likely running in the entire world.

It's quite clear that apple is an irrelevant player in this field, and thus, we need not consider this at all in making comparisons.

You may not, but they do. Your lack of knowledge doesn't change a thing.

Among other things, I spent the last year and change admining a rack of ESX 3.5 servers. I've done quite a lot of hosting and enterprise level purchasing of hosting hardware.

So, when I say I don't know why a hosting company would want OS X installed on the bare metal, it's because there's no plausible reason why a hosting company would want OS X installed on the bare metal unless they're so small it's basically a guy hosting from his garage. Virtualization is pretty much a mandatory thing for any major hosting company to get into, and the fellows supporting such things should be competent enough to be entirely unconcerned about calling the apple support desk to learn how to use OS X.

All of the articles I have read predict impending widespread adoption. It should also be noted that Apple was also the catalyst for widespread USB adoption (no, they didn't invent it or have it first, but they were the main reason behind its adoption by consumers). I'm not speculating on whether USB would have failed or if it would have still succeeded eventually, but taken much longer to do so, but the fact remains that it was Apple that gave USB the boost that it needed to succeed at that time.

Usb was pretty widely used at about the same time. Mac was one of the major players, yes, but there were a LOT of major players all in the game together with USB.

Standard adoption is touchy at best. When USB came out, there was a need for a standard. Back then, there were harddrives on SCSI and printers on parallel ports, and so on. The back of a computer looked like a hot mess. USB was pretty critical.

A new standard is much less critical nowadays, given that USB keeps boosting versions while keeping backward compatibility. That's probably the main reason that, while USB had seven major players on board, Thunderbolt has two. You can't really consider the two equally important, or equally likely to be successful.

First, I disagree with your statements "while killing it in everything else". Nothing you have said has come close to showing that anything kills anything else in "everything else" and others have shown that it definitely does not in certain areas.

Name something the netbook does more poorly than the air other than the CPU? It kills it in battery life, it's on par in weight/form factor, it beats it in ports, it's on par in memory, it's on par in video. It kills it pretty badly on price. It beats it in reliability

You'd only pick the Air over it if performance for you was SO critical that you'd ignore all those things for a modest speed boost.

And you'd need the performance issue to be not at all important enough to bother picking up an optimized windows machine.

This is a better comparison, but it's still for a different market. Alienware are targeting Windows gamers. This no doubt makes it much better for those people, but not necessarily for others.

Well, yes, they are. But you're thinking of Mac users as a separate market, rather than as part of the computer market. Mac users also like games sometimes. Sure, they have a poor reputation with gamers from the historically poor selection for the system, but that doesn't mean it's got to be that way.

It smacks a bit of "it has to be this way, because it's this way right now."

Alienware has absolutely shockingly terrible touchpads - I know, I have one. The Air is much thinner and is almost half the weight. These are two elements already that add to the price and provide reasons for people to prefer the Air over the Alienware.

My experience with alienware laptops does not include using the touchpad(I'm a mouse fan), so I have no idea. The alienware laptops ARE bricks with regards to weight, but the point is...you're essentially relying on very, very few differentiators to justify buying the apple. Differentiators that are entirely different than the one you use to justify not buying the netbook.

You need efficiency(size/weight to battery life ratio) and power to both be such huge concerns that they dominate price excessively...in addition to everything else...but neither can be a huge enough concern to justify maximizing it. This seems like an amazingly specific and hard to justify set of circumstances, given that this market does not exist in the non-mac world.

Do people that happen to prefer OS X really have entirely different sets of needs for computers? This seems fairly implausible, and requiring major evidence to support.

ASUS was never the comparison in that statement. The comparison was that of Apple to all of the PC providers. This comparison showed that Apple, like a select few PC providers, places high value on the reliability of the system.

Then that's irrelevant. I didn't compare to Psystar when judging reliability of OS X running stuff. Which, incidentally, would tank the windows/mac comparison pretty harshly for team mac.

You pretty much have to compare macs against a specific opponent, not against some vague, amorphous entity known as the "PC market". Because then it's all a matter of subjectivity. People opt to buy PCs from specific companies, not "all of the PC Providers"

It is also worth noting that ASUS are in a relatively unique position here too, one that even Apple does not have, in that they were long running high quality component part manufacturers for the entire PC industry that have expanded into the full system sector. They can reduce costs dramatically by providing themselves with high quality parts.

This can make their products much cheaper while still being of high quality. This will make the quality level that Apple wishes to maintain comparatively more expensive for Apple. This means that ASUS can indeed be better value for the consumer while Apple has to charge more to maintain the same level.

This is true. Apple has the consumer electronics angle. Ipods, iphones, that's what they work, and they do it fairly well. Dell crushes it with servers. Asus does hardware, and they do that well.

A unique position in the marketplace DOES help you gain advantages over the rest, and, from a buyers perspective, that's awesome. I don't much care about how much is profit or not if the end result is me getting a great system cheaper.

Erloas

2011-10-06, 10:04 AM

All of the articles I have read predict impending widespread adoption. It should also be noted that Apple was also the catalyst for widespread USB adoption (no, they didn't invent it or have it first, but they were the main reason behind its adoption by consumers). I'm not speculating on whether USB would have failed or if it would have still succeeded eventually, but taken much longer to do so, but the fact remains that it was Apple that gave USB the boost that it needed to succeed at that time.

I might be remembering this wrong, but I don't think Apple pushed USB at all, and were mostly against it*. Their competing standard at the time was Firewire. They really pushed firewire, they pioneered it and got it wide spread in the graphical and photography fields. They were also the first company to start dropping it from their systems and I remember some years ago many businesses in the field where complaining about them dropping firewire support from the iMacs since all of their peripherals where firewire.

And now its Thunderbolt, the new "wonder port." But if I remember correctly it was only a few years ago that Apple was going on about how amazing DisplayPort was and how that was going to be the new standard that took over the industry. Yet, here it is only a couple years later and they are already replacing it with Thunderbolt.

As for Apple using higher quality parts... they buy all of their parts from the same manufacturers as everyone else. In fact, for the most part they use FoxConn boards and virtually no enthusiast would pick a FoxConn board for their own systems because there are faster, more reliable manufacturers around.
In terms of comparing Apple straight across, they purposefully make it hard to do. They have manufacturers given them unique part numbers specifically so no one else has it. They aren't better parts, they are the same parts with a new name and potentially a very small tweak to some clock number. I know Nvidia loves to rebrand existing hardware for Apple (and in general).

Rawhide

2011-10-06, 11:05 AM

I might be remembering this wrong, but I don't think Apple pushed USB at all, and were mostly against it*. Their competing standard at the time was Firewire. They really pushed firewire, they pioneered it and got it wide spread in the graphical and photography fields. They were also the first company to start dropping it from their systems and I remember some years ago many businesses in the field where complaining about them dropping firewire support from the iMacs since all of their peripherals where firewire.

Firewire was not a direct competitor at the time and Apple pushed both USB and Firewire. USB was in the 12 Mbps "1.1" stage, while Firewire was 400 Mbps. Their products, particularly the rather successful iMac, included both (note: Firewire was not in the first generation iMac, but was in the second). They dropped all legacy ports, used USB for the keyboard and mouse and pushed for more peripheral support of it. The iMac boomed, many manufacturers jumped on the USB (frequently mimicking the "candy" coloured products).

Firewire had a good run, but is being phased out by Apple due to faster USB speeds and a lack of need to support it for new products. This will obviously upset those that still use the technology, and for good reason (they can no longer use their stuff if they upgrade).

It should be noted too that Apple has been credited with the death of the floppy drive. They were the first major company to drop the floppy drive on their low end consumer range, followed shortly by their entire range. They decided that it was an obsolete technology that had been holding on my its fingernails for far too long. It clung on in some places for quite a while longer, but their efforts marked the beginning of the end and a very sharp decline.

And now its Thunderbolt, the new "wonder port." But if I remember correctly it was only a few years ago that Apple was going on about how amazing DisplayPort was and how that was going to be the new standard that took over the industry. Yet, here it is only a couple years later and they are already replacing it with Thunderbolt.

The Thunderbolt is a DisplayPort. It's a DisplayPort+. It's based on DisplayPort and compatible with it. From Wikipedia: "Thunderbolt essentially combines PCI Express and DisplayPort into a new serial data interface that can be carried over longer and less costly cables."

As for Apple using higher quality parts... they buy all of their parts from the same manufacturers as everyone else. In fact, for the most part they use FoxConn boards and virtually no enthusiast would pick a FoxConn board for their own systems because there are faster, more reliable manufacturers around.

So no computer enthusiast would pick a company like ASUS? ASUS uses FoxConn as well. Intel uses them to make their reference boards.

And I am well aware that there are only a few actual manufacturers that all of the different companies have to use, but the Apple selection process is higher than most other companies, and it shows.

In terms of comparing Apple straight across, they purposefully make it hard to do. They have manufacturers given them unique part numbers specifically so no one else has it. They aren't better parts, they are the same parts with a new name and potentially a very small tweak to some clock number. I know Nvidia loves to rebrand existing hardware for Apple (and in general).

I don't see your point here:

If it really is such a minor change as a different part number, and nothing else, then it is hardly going to make one iota of difference in comparisons. Just find the matching part and know that the two are the same.

If it isn't just a relabel and actually contains some differences, then it is still easy enough to link up to the matching product in terms of performance.

That said, Apple do ask for the higher quality parts and do ask for the parts that have had greater levels of quality assurance.

Erloas

2011-10-06, 12:18 PM

The iMac never "boomed," they didn't gain much in market share for a long time, long after the USB port was standard and the floppy disk drive was gone. Sure Apple was there, but they didn't yet have any real market share and definitely didn't have the "mindshare" that they have now. They had barely turned around from the near death state they were in by that time. They were not leading market trends at that time. USB was in common use before the original iPod launched and that was the product that gave Apple any sort of market notice.

If anything the enthusiast was more the death of the floppy drive, sees as that was really big in the early 2000s with high OCing contests and such. They also made up a larger part of the market then Apple did. The floppy disk was discarded there first.

And a few years ago Apple dropped firewire across their entire line of products. After a lot of complaining from their customers they added it back in in some lines. It never really caught on much outside of Apple and even in its prime you had to specifically look for it if you wanted it on something other then an Apple. The point mostly was how Apple dropped support for a technology they created and pushed before their customers were ready for it to be phased out. And of course if anyone cared there are faster versions of Firewire that are never really heard about.

As for Thunderbolt... I really don't see it going anywhere. For it to be what it is supposed to be it would have to replace USB and HDMI at the same time and I don't see that happening. There are too many players using HDMI that I don't see it being switched over, especially since its taken HDMI years to get to where its at and there isn't any major advantages for using Thunderbolt over HDMI, where as there was in transitioning from VGA and DVI to HDMI. And USB is even more entrenched and with few good reasons to move away from it. My bet is that Thunderbolt slowly gains some market share but struggles to hit mainstream use and then in a few years is replaced by a wireless technology such as an upgraded bluetooth or similar sort of thing.

As for Asus and Foxconn... Asus manufacturers its own motherboards, as well as Gigabyte, MSI, ECS and a few other commonly used enthusiast brands. They might use a few Foxconn connectors, maybe a small controller, but almost everything is designed and manufactured by them. And they're all considered much higher quality manufacturers then Foxconn is. Foxconn is what you pick when you're trying to be cheap, as an enthusiast.

If it really is such a minor change as a different part number, and nothing else, then it is hardly going to make one iota of difference in comparisons. Just find the matching part and know that the two are the same.
The point was simply that it was one of Apple's marketing ploys so they can claim they have a part no one else has and make it more difficult for consumers to compare their parts vs the competitors. If I remember right Nvidia gives them a new product name for their spec sheet with every release, but its not a new product it is a rebranded existing product that has the clock numbers slightly adjusted so it looks different on a spec sheet without having any real world difference. Intel has done that some as well, though not as much. And while the comparisons can be made, it takes a well informed consumer to know what they are doing and what regular part to compare it to.
Of course it becomes clear when someone takes the hardware and bootcamps it or load OSX on other hardware (not too hard to do if you know what you are doing) and do direct benchmark comparisons, but no one does that much. Mostly because the sort of people that do those tests and are interested in them are not the sort of people that are going to be interested in a Mac in the first place. There is not much of an audience for those sorts of tests or comparisons.

tyckspoon

2011-10-06, 12:47 PM

As for Thunderbolt... I really don't see it going anywhere. For it to be what it is supposed to be it would have to replace USB and HDMI at the same time and I don't see that happening. There are too many players using HDMI that I don't see it being switched over, especially since its taken HDMI years to get to where its at and there isn't any major advantages for using Thunderbolt over HDMI, where as there was in transitioning from VGA and DVI to HDMI. And USB is even more entrenched and with few good reasons to move away from it. My bet is that Thunderbolt slowly gains some market share but struggles to hit mainstream use and then in a few years is replaced by a wireless technology such as an upgraded bluetooth or similar sort of thing.

This is probable, unless Thunderbolt manages to catch on as the designated high-speed peripheral port as a replacement for eSata, but it won't be for lack of technical merit. There are very good reasons to drop HDMI; it is, technically speaking, a completely terrible video specification. Just in physical design alone, for example, it has two big flaws: it sucks at long-distance transmission (almost any old VGA cable will go dozens of feet without degradation and get up into the hundreds with an inexpensive signal booster, while your cheap bin HDMI gets you to 6 reliably) and its spec has no means of securing the plug, leaving it very vulnerable to jostling and unintended removals. DisplayPort is also much more versatile and useful than HDMI, although mostly in ways that are more relevant to a computer setup than a home-entertainment scenario; DisplayPort/Thunderbolt can, for example, make a multiple-monitor setup cheaper and much easier to do. The reasons to keep HDMI around have a lot more to do with marketing and manufacturer inertia than they do technical validity.

Talya

2011-10-06, 01:11 PM

If I believed in hell, I'd be going there.

http://i.imgur.com/0Vv1j.jpg

Anima

2011-10-06, 01:59 PM

This is probable, unless Thunderbolt manages to catch on as the designated high-speed peripheral port as a replacement for eSata, but it won't be for lack of technical merit. There are very good reasons to drop HDMI; it is, technically speaking, a completely terrible video specification. Just in physical design alone, for example, it has two big flaws: it sucks at long-distance transmission (almost any old VGA cable will go dozens of feet without degradation and get up into the hundreds with an inexpensive signal booster, while your cheap bin HDMI gets you to 6 reliably) and its spec has no means of securing the plug, leaving it very vulnerable to jostling and unintended removals. DisplayPort is also much more versatile and useful than HDMI, although mostly in ways that are more relevant to a computer setup than a home-entertainment scenario; DisplayPort/Thunderbolt can, for example, make a multiple-monitor setup cheaper and much easier to do. The reasons to keep HDMI around have a lot more to do with marketing and manufacturer inertia than they do technical validity.
While that may be theoretically true, I don't think that those are relevant for most applications.
Nearly every single setup will have a distance less than 1m between monitor and video source. People who need 6m or more are pretty much fringe cases. And there are ways to extend that length to 300m.
I've never seen a dislodged HDMI plug, since the cables are behind the TV/Computer most of the time. Even during the time were I had an HDMI cable pretty much in the air, I've never managed to unplug it on accident.

Talya

2011-10-06, 02:11 PM

I've got a dirt cheap 15' HDMI plug I use between my PC and the television. There is absolutely no signal degradation. The PC looks as good as a blu-ray playing on the PS3 on a 3' cable beneath the TV.

tyckspoon

2011-10-06, 02:50 PM

While that may be theoretically true, I don't think that those are relevant for most applications.
Nearly every single setup will have a distance less than 1m between monitor and video source. People who need 6m or more are pretty much fringe cases. And there are ways to extend that length to 300m.
I've never seen a dislodged HDMI plug, since the cables are behind the TV/Computer most of the time. Even during the time were I had an HDMI cable pretty much in the air, I've never managed to unplug it on accident.

And this is the main reason DisplayPort never caught on, really; everybody is already used to HDMI, the vendors have already invested in selling it to people, and for most applications it's Good Enough. HDMI is a flustercluck of a design standard, and DisplayPort is better, but it's not compellingly better enough to beat HDMI's entrenched position, not when you have to go through all the "so what's this DP logo mean again?" stuff and invent new reasons that HDMI is no longer good enough to use, the same way they tried to get people to ditch VGA for HDMI. Thunderbolt will likely have the same thing happen to it unless Intel either sells it really hard, or the multi-use nature of it makes it significantly cheaper to use; it may turn out that you get, say, 4 Thunderbolt ports (with pass-through/daisychain ports on the peripherals) to effectively replace the entire rear I/O panel on desktops. Otherwise it'll be like DP now; a niche solution to what was previously a rather annoying problem (Primarily: before DisplayPort if you wanted 3+ monitors you needed multiple video cards, thanks a limitation in the design of the legacy video standards, which made it unnecessarily expensive and difficult to program for) but one most people don't particularly care about.

factotum

2011-10-06, 03:10 PM

Apple were first to really make use of USB, that much is true, but they also used a non-standard USB port--there was a "notch" in the socket which wasn't in the specification. I have no idea why they did this, unless it was to prevent people plugging Apple keyboards and mice into PCs; still, you can't really start giving them kudos for helping standardise USB when they pull tricks like that, can you?

Lord Seth

2011-10-06, 03:15 PM

I might be remembering this wrong, but I don't think Apple pushed USB at all, and were mostly against it*.I see an asterisk here, but where's the footnote?

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-06, 03:17 PM

I love Apple design, but a lot of time I find it less practical.
The USB thing is one thing. The lack of an actual eject button on your CD / DVD Drive was another, and the insistence on only one mouse button was yet another.

Usually they are masters of joining sleek design and function, but sometimes (and a little too often for my taste) they let the design control the function.

Talya

2011-10-06, 03:21 PM

My favorite Apple marketing stunt was describing the lack of any level of direct control on the iPod shuffle as a "feature."

Erloas

2011-10-06, 04:41 PM

I see an asterisk here, but where's the footnote?

I was going to post which companies worked on the designs of USB and but decided not to but forgot to go back and remove the asterisk.
For reference the companies behind the design of the USB standard were Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC and Nortel. All of which had a lot more industrial and commercial weight and market share then Apple did at the time. I'm sure in the mid 90s when USB came out, the struggling Apple's implementation of USB in their systems were key to its adoption and growth, rather then the industrial leaders of the time.

My favorite Apple marketing stunt was describing the lack of any level of direct control on the iPod shuffle as a "feature."
I'm rather fond of the "your holding it wrong" answer to the iPhone antenna blunder.

Rawhide

2011-10-06, 08:22 PM

Avilan the Grey

2011-10-06, 10:14 PM

I don't have time for a full reply to everything in your post now, but I'm going to leave this article from PC World which refutes those claims for me.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/149878/eight_ways_the_imac_changed_computing.html

All of that is true. The iMac never boomed, though.

Flickerdart

2011-10-06, 10:44 PM

I find the first point of that article very curious - why must a creative tool be aesthetically pleasing, and what was pleasing about the ridiculous looking iMacs? If anything, I would argue that using a "pre-designed" tool would limit your range of aesthetics, while a "non-designed" beige box would let you safely ignore it.

Erloas

2011-10-06, 10:53 PM

Well I would say I don't think it is any more true because some write for MacWorld wrote it either. Sure you linked to PCWorld, which I wouldn't put much weight into what they say in the first place, but its an article from MacWorld and it was written in late 2008, not exactly an unbiased point of view. Well into the time when suddenly everything Apple has done and will do is going to be super amazing and change the world. Apple has been a media darling for at least 5-6 years now. The article sounds like it was written by Apple marketing, I mean its practically giving them credit for helping push the internet growth. It was also the iPod, not the iMac that make that annoying little i go mainstream and prefix itself to just about everything. Sure the iPod got it from the iMac, but the iPod was what got people to notice it.

And maybe the iMac did boom a little bit, no good way of checking for sure but there was at least a blip up on Apple's stock in early 2000s.
But even with that Apple never even hit 5th place in market share, which meant their market share was below 4.3 and 3.8% in 1999 and 2000, when, if they were booming, would have been when they should have been highest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share_of_leading_PC_vendors
And yes, that would include Apple, they do show up on the list in 1996.

For reference, two of the main backers of USB, Compaq and IBM had a combined market share a bit over 20% for all of the years where USB was starting off.

And the only real claim the article makes is that owners of iMac's didn't have a choice of anything other then USB, which they use to conclude that everyone was making USB devices to sell to iMac users. Their claim that all the first generation USB devices were the same colors and shapes as the iMac is something I don't remember at all and sounds like biased memory to me. Some? Yes. Most? not even close. Its also not like the full conversion to USB even happened that fast, no where near fast enough to try and attribute it to one primary cause. And when you consider that along that same time period USB also appeared on computers from every other brand its impossible to say it was even mostly attributed to the iMac. I know the computer I bought in '99 had USB ports on it as standard.

As for the floppy drive, its pretty much the same thing but in the opposite direction. The floppy started to die out as CD burners got more common, cheaper, and faster; and when the internet was starting to pick up more. And files were getting to the point where a normal floppy disk was simply to small to be of any use so much of the time. The technology was nearing the end of its lifecycle naturally, and even if the iMac was the first one to drop it completely that doesn't mean it killed it off. The aforementioned first computer I bought also didn't have a floppy drive, though it did have a superdrive or some such which was a Zip drive competitor with a storage capacity around 100mb, and being from April/May '99 it was hardly enough time to have been influenced greatly by an iMac released less then about 6 months earlier.

Even the claim that it killed beige is... questionable at best. Even 13 years later the majority of computers still look like they did before, not like the original iMac. And pretty ironically, all of Apple's products now, from the iMac, to the Mac Pro, to the iPod, and iPhone are all beige, (well white) or black. Very standard colors. None of the outlandish candy colors of the original iMacs.