|
|
|
Re: APPLE vs. PC |
|---|
| message from jsteinmann on 24 Jul 2004 |
and the debate rages on.... how many years is this now?
MACS do one thing really great... they keep it simple. Unforunately, or
fortunately, most of us have already been trained from countless years on PCs,
so we can use them in our sleep anyway... something that's maybe more intuitive
with Apple.
Like many of you, i use my computer for web design, internet browsing, music,
photos, dvds, and multimedia in general... and MACS are really great and easy
to use for all of these things. PCs do offer more software titles, but usually
of things you'll never use (unless your 15 and want to play video games all day
long). I'm also pretty pissed at all the hardware restrictions and
incompatabilities that occur.
iTunes and iPod has certainly turned Apple around. Here in CA, seems like a
lot of people own a Apple computer, but nationwide it's probably like 10%.
With all the millions of iPods being sold, perhaps we will see that # increase,
especially since MS has had very little to offer people these days, and the
next OS way off.
As for the comments about PCs with MS OSs having all these problems... what in
the hell are you doing to your computers? In all the years that I have had a
PC, I have had no trouble like this. I use virus software, anti-spyware,
defrag the HD at least once a month, and they never crash or have problems. as
mentioned, both platforms are very comparable these days, and both are pretty
equal with what you want to do.
|
| David Hier replied to jsteinmann on 25 Jul 2004 |
I didn't really want to get into the politics of Mac vs. PC, but if the
rumours about longhorn are true, then I will have to fork out thousands of
pounds on new scanners, printers, graphics tablets etc if I stick with a PC.
If the new Microsoft OS isn't due until 2006 then that just makes matters
worse. My current PC is long in the tooth and desperately needs replacing.
In which case if I buy a new PC, come the launch of the next OS I will have
allot of hardware to replace and a PC that will probably go the way of
Windows 98, and I won't get any technical support as XP becomes obsolete. On
top of that, hardware manufacturers will no doubt cater to longhorn's
requirements and will be far from keen to make new equipment backwards
compatible, which means that I won't be able to get any new kit for an XP
driven PC.
Luckily most of my software is cross platform, so that is at least one area
where I won't lose out.
Ideally, if I had the money I would work on both platforms, and more
importantly, because of cross browser compatibility issues, it should be a
given.
jsteinmann <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:cdteui$t93$1@forums.macromedia.com...
|
| David Hier replied to jsteinmann on 24 Jul 2004 |
As far as Microsoft's new OS is concerned, it could be the deciding factor
in whether PC's or Mac's reign supreme in the future.
Although I am a PC user I can certainly see the appeal of Apple's
simplicity, however I was introduced to computing via the PC and as a
consequence that's what I've stuck with. Over the years I have built up
quite an arsenal of expensive hardware and it just wouldn't make any sense
to switch to a Mac. However I may have no choice in the matter. From what I
understand Microsoft have landed themselves in a legal nightmare, with the
copyright of Windows being brought into question. This means that Microsoft
has to pay a fine whenever it releases any Windows based software. To avoid
paying out million of dollars in fines, it has been rumoured that the next
Microsoft OS will not take the form of the Windows format, adopting a
completely new system. This means that the next OS will not be backwards
compatible and any hardware I now own will not work on the next OS. In other
words, all of my hardware is junk, which will have to be scrapped if I
upgrade to Microsoft's next OS. If this is the case I think I, and many
others who have always tended to use PC's, will seriously consider swapping
over to a Mac. It could well be that Mr. Gates has shot himself in the foot
on this one.
jsteinmann <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:cdteui$t93$1@forums.macromedia.com...
|
| David B replied to David Hier on 24 Jul 2004 |
1. I'm in the same boat - stuck with a PC and lots of expensive software.
2. I wasn't aware that MS was being fined for arrogantly claiming
ownership of the word "doors"...er, "windows." In fact, Microsoft has
proven itself pretty much above the law again and again. Are you aware
that Microsoft won the last round against Lindows, a company that
actually boasted a "more legal" name? MS does lose lawsuits, but it
seldom gets more than a tap on the hand. Nevertheless, Microsoft will
never and could never get its act together and will therefore always be
a pain in the butt.
3. Having said all that, I'm not convinced that software expense is
really the most valid argument against switching from a PC to a Mac.
Many companies let you upgrade across platforms, and there's an ever
growing proliferation of "cross-platform" software and gimmicks, not to
mention often free open source software. Why purchase another office
suite when you can get OpenOffice for free, or StarOffice for $80?
Adobe has traditionally been desgined for the Mac, not the PC. I believe
Dreamweaver is said to run a little better on a PC - but what difference
does that make if Windows dictates that your PC itself doesn't run smoothly?
So unless you have some very specialized and expensive software that
can't be upgraded across platforms, I wouldn't think the expense of
upgrading software would be that great. Then again, I haven't made the
switch yet.
To avoid
Are you referring to Longhorn? I don't believe it's even due out until
sometime in 2006. By that time, Mozilla Firefox could boast 95% market
share, and half the home users in America might be using OpenOffice or
StarOffice. It isn't likely, but things can happen very rapidly in the
world of high-tech.
In other
If that's the case, it may be the final nail in Bill Gates' coffin.
Having already made more enemies than anyone can count, then keeping
people waiting until 2006 for the next OS upgrade while letting Internet
Explorer go to Hell, I don't think customers are going to be very happy
if they discover they're going to have to throw all their software out
the window and start from scratch.
Nevertheless, that might be a fun rumor to spread. :)
|
| Steve Fleischer replied to David B on 25 Jul 2004 |
Recently Assoc. Press reported:
"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said Thursday it will give an
additional $50 million to the United Nations's global fund to fight
AIDS......"
I have no idea why you are so rabidly anti-Microsoft/Gates but it is
getting somewhat tiresome. I have no feelings either way for them/him but
there is no doubt he puts a lot back into society and that fact should be
appreciated. Just my opinion.
|
| David B replied to Steve Fleischer on 24 Jul 2004 |
Yawn. Steal from consumers, steal again in the form of big tax breaks,
then give a bundle of money to some cause recommended by your public
relations staff and get more tax writeoffs - not to mention market
leverage in AIDS-afflicted nations. And how much is Bill Gates making
off Iraq these days? I noticed he got Michael Moore's attention.
Because I'm politically active, I live in Bill Gates' back yard, I've
crossed paths with some of his hatchet men, and I know the truth?
but it is
No, he really doesn't. There's an enormous difference between
contributing to society and throwing vast sums of money at PR causes,
much of it with some really obvious strings attached. I'm very familiar
with a school district that is withering under Bill Gates' "aid," even
as the jackass leads the charge for charter schools.
With your logic, we should praise Osama bin Laden because he reportedly
donated money to build schools.
|
| Murray *TMM* replied to David B on 25 Jul 2004 |
I have both. I use both. I have used both for many years - in power user
situations.
I much prefer the PC. By miles.
|
|
