Doesn't everyone here want the best? Win vs MAC

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't mean to say that anybody who buys an Apple product is a fanboy. For example iPods were insanely popular. I know people who would not buy an Apple Computer unless it was the only computer available but they would buy Apple products like an iPod or an iPhone. There are people who go into Apple Stores and do not even glance at the computers. They head straight for the iPods and the iPhones. I really think it is necessary to separate Apple's consumer electronics products from their computers. Steve Jobs himself ordered that the word 'Computer' be dropped from the corporate name. It went from Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc. Even the iPad, although a computer, is kind of like a consumer electronics item rather than a typical computer. It certainly has more limited capabilities compared to a desktop computer. I would not try to use an iPad for editing photographs.

You don't have to apologize to me for saying that Apple Computers are now 25% of all home computers. I just wanted to correct what you said and that is all. There are problems today trying to determine what percentage of computers are Apple Computers because of the sales of iPads and other Apple equipment that makes it appear there are more Apple Computers on the internet than there actually are. An iPad is a computer of course, but different than a desktop computer or a larger laptop computer. Some people are attracted to iPads as if iPads were an adult toy of some kind.

I would probably still be using Apple Computers if there was an affordable desktop model between the iMac and the MacPro, if Apple's Aperture software could compete with Photoshop, and if my photo printer would work properly with Apple Computers. But Apple Computers tend to be too expensive, and there is less hardware and software support. And it beats me when (or perhaps I should say if) Apple will ever come out with a new version of Aperture. To me it seems like all of the emphasis for Apple today is on mobile computing and some kind of lifestyle image they want to project. They (and Google) seem to want to push the idea that the age of the desktop computer is dead, maybe because they think Microsoft would die away if that happened. I doubt very much that the desktop computer is dead. Where I work there are hundreds of desktop computers, but few laptops. The laptops are used by a few top executives. And for home use I much prefer a Windows desktop computer that is very capable, can be upgraded easily for a reasonable price, and costs less than some of the fancy laptops. There are MacPro Pro laptops that cost more than my desktop computer.
 
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
I went and double checked myself. Apple has nearly 25% of *new* personal computer sales through Q3 2011.


That is actually higher than I thought it would be.
 
We have both.

I must say the new Ipad is a pretty cool piece of hardware. As a long term PC man I sometimes find it a bit odd, but it is fantastic at what it does.
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Anyone remember OS/2? I had that for about a month on an old 386 we had at home. This must have been back in the early '90s.


Yes, and OS/2 WARP as well
grin.gif


I still have OS/2 WARP...in a box...on the shelf. Too bad it didn't catch on at the time.


I was a big OS/2 fanboi back in the day. It was rock solid, ran Windows better than Windows...all in about 8MB of RAM.

Installed Warp 3.0 in a VM using Fusion on my Mac recently for old time's sake.
 
I almost bought a copy of OS/2 when I saw a box on a store shelf many years ago. Of course I am glad now I did not buy it because it did not catch on. But a lot of people felt that OS/2 was actually better than Windows 95.

Today the big push is for 'cloud computing' and the mobile computer lifestyle, with everybody carrying laptop computers or iPads. Of course the 'cloud' are server farms located in various areas. I have some reservations about all of this.

If all corporations, companies, governmental agencies, etc., put all of their data in the 'cloud' (server farms) it would be possible for natural disasters or manmade disasters to destroy all of that data, ruining many companies and causing economic hardship.

The obvious possibility of a terrorist attack should come up. For example, if much of the data of corporations and governmental agencies on the east coast were located at a few server farms, those sites would be tempting targets.

The server farms could be affected by earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. Just recently there was a historic flooding of the Mississippi River.

And somebody working at a server farm could be tempted by money and steal data.

Now of course we already have the 'cloud' and there are good points about it. But putting too much data from too many sources into one or a few server farms could be dangerous. Apple is building a huge data center. As far as I know it is the only such data center that they are building. If something happens to the one big data center?

Sort of like locating so much business in the Twin Towers. Today it is more spread out. The Twin Towers were tempting targets for some people-correct? The destruction of those buildings caused an incredible amount of economic damage. Maybe a trillion dollars worth. Might be a good idea not to put all of your stuff in one place.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
If all corporations, companies, governmental agencies, etc., put all of their data in the 'cloud' (server farms) it would be possible for natural disasters or manmade disasters to destroy all of that data, ruining many companies and causing economic hardship.

The obvious possibility of a terrorist attack should come up. For example, if much of the data of corporations and governmental agencies on the east coast were located at a few server farms, those sites would be tempting targets.

The server farms could be affected by earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. Just recently there was a historic flooding of the Mississippi River.



Most big corporations have redundancy in multiple locations for disaster recovery. I would highly doubt that they would be targeted and attacked all at the same time unless the world is going to end, which means they would have bigger problem to worry about.

I'm old school. The "problem" I have with cloud is that the last mile connection is not always reliable. I'd hate to be stuck without access to crucial data if my network goes down.
 
Last edited:
I work in IT, VP of a very large Corporation. I was a staunch Windows supporter for many years, we spend millions annually with Microsoft and spend millions supporting end-users at our Help Desk dealing with the typical myriad of issues. We today still have Windows but have moved over to Windows 7 64-bit, we recently began issuing Mac Book Pro's to our sales force since they are idiots (sorry but it's true, we love em without sales were doomed but they drive us crazy) and only require email, internet and not much else. Our SE's and SA's in IT most run Mac's since we have native tools that allow us to SSL into our Linux/Unix boxes from the Mac's, don't ever have to deal with BSOD's when they are working on routers, firewalls, etc.

I have a iMac at home that is an old 17" late 2006 model, never have done anything to it except install Snow Leopard then Tiger on it. It just runs and I'm happy because at home the last thing I want to do is mess with a computer. I also have a very nice Republic of Gamer's ASUS I7 Quad-Core system for gaming that is only used maybe 10 hours a month but is a blast.

I've converted ALL of my family to Mac's, why? Because I want to have my weekends to myself, we now have iChat sessions showing off the grand kids, etc and not wasting time trying to diagnose my mothers PC and why it won't connect to the Internet.

I have to say a little bit of moderation in the computer world goes a long way, for the Windows fan boys you need to stop and become more open minded, the Mac if nothing else is an engineering marvel and the O/S extremely stable thanks to Free BSD/NetBSD. For the Apply fan boys you need to understand not everyone can afford a Mac and not every application runs on a Mac, adding a VM just adds to the cost.

This notion that one is better and we all need to be on the same wavelength is udder non-sense, each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Ciao
 
Last edited:
I agree that they both have good points and bad points. Macs are too expensive (they could be cheaper-that was proved when there were other manufacturers allowed to build computers using the Mac O/S). There is more malware for Windows computers but they are more compatible with software and hardware.

You installed Snow Leopard and then Tiger on your iMac? Did you mean the other way around? Tiger came before Leopard and then Snow Leopard. The most recent is Lion. They will not let you go backwards very easily unless you use a new hard drive or erase the old hard drive completely. I regret replacing Tiger with Leopard on my iMac. Tiger was the best Mac OS X that Apple ever developed in my opinion. I am thinking of trying to go back to Tiger.

Mas OS X can be unstable. I have seen kernal panics probably about twice. A kernal panic in my opinion is more scary than a Blue Screen of Death.

When I installed Leopard on my iMac I thought I had wrecked the computer. There was a blue screen for a long time but eventually the operating system worked. And it was slow. Slower than Tiger. I don't think very highly of the new Lion Apple operating system. It looks cluttered and inferior to Tiger.

I would kind of like to have both a Windows computer and a Mac. A lot of people do run both. But there is less and less reason to run a Mac when I can get better photo printing from my Windows computer. The Mac at least for now would be safer on the internet, but I would still run an antivirus on the Mac. If for no other reason than to prevent infecting a friend's Windows computer since a Mac can be a carrier.
 
Mac's kernel panic is the same as Windows' blue screen. Both are due to the kernel not able to handle what is going on that shouldn't have happened. Most of them are caused by poorly written hardware drivers.

And all you need to do to cause a kernel panic is to remove a USB to RS232 adapter while running it. In Windows if you buy low quality hardware with poorly written drivers, then it happens a lot.

Security on both are relatively good today as long as the user do not override the protection themselves. In Windows 7 user tends to poke holes in firewall or runs malware in administrator mode, and in OSX user tend to install the malware and enter the password themselves. Both are caused mostly by users.

The main reason OSX users think they are safer is because they are the minority, as their popularity grow they will get more attacks and they will get more malware / virus / trojan.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Macs are too expensive (they could be cheaper-that was proved when there were other manufacturers allowed to build computers using the Mac O/S).

Those other companies didn't have to recover the R&D costs of the OS.
 
Well, BeOS is still around, isn't it? Maybe somebody who possesses the courage Steve Jobs had will come along and run with it.

I would be willing to use BeOS if I was able to have the hardware and software compatibility that I require. It is not the OS that is important, or who makes the OS and the computers, it is the results you can obtain. I care about the results.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Well, BeOS is still around, isn't it? Maybe somebody who possesses the courage Steve Jobs had will come along and run with it.

I would be willing to use BeOS if I was able to have the hardware and software compatibility that I require. It is not the OS that is important, or who makes the OS and the computers, it is the results you can obtain. I care about the results.


Not really. Though a successor has been developed: Haiku.

For those interested:

http://haiku-os.org/

I'm about to put it on a VM and give it a spin.
 
Well, at least some people are trying to develop new operating systems. With numerous advances in various software areas new operating systems may well have become desirable. Especially if these new OSs will work on relatively low power computers and hopefully have good hardware and software compatibility. Maybe Microsoft and Apple both need some competition. There is nothing wrong with competition.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
I really wish BeOS was the OS on the Macs. Apple would own 90% of the market by now. It was the best OS in the consumer space ever IMHO.



Apple would NEVER, EVER own 90% of the market, because of the way they like to dominate every single pieces from hardware to software, when competitors work together for standards.
 
Where is the other approximately 10% of operating systems? The information here agrees with some of the things I have been able to find out. For example, Macs are probably about 5% of desktop computers in the world as a whole. It is very difficult to find out exactly what percentage Macs are in the USA. Some people estimate 10%. Some estimate 15%. The information here indicates about 10% by combining both the Mac OS X and the iOS operating systems. There probably are not a lot of older Mac operating systems so there are a lot of desktop computers missing.

Linux operating system DESKTOPS (not servers) have been staying around 1% for a long time.

Most of the missing approximately 10% are probably Windows desktops.
 
Buy whatever meets your needs, and whatever you like. If a PC best meets your needs, buy a PC. If a Mac best meets your needs, buy a Mac.

As as as winning is concerned. I guess we would have to assume that Microsoft and Windows won a long time ago. The overwhelming number of desktop computers throughout the world are PCs using some version of Windows. Of course, nobody knows what is going to happen in the future.

Long ago I went to Apple Computers, moving away from Windows, because Apple Computers met my needs. A few years ago, I returned to Windows computers, because Windows computers best met my needs. What is important are results, not the computers and software. The computers and software are just tools to get the job done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Help!! Especially Mac users.. please help.
2
Replies
24
Views
7K
Popinski
M
  • Locked
New computer advice: Mac vs Windows?
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
HondaBroMike
Skippy722
  • Locked
What was your first computer?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
7K
talest
J
  • Locked
What is the real deal on anti-virus programs?
2
Replies
31
Views
9K
Jimmy9190
K
  • Locked
HP vs DELL vs MAC - my recent experience
2 3
Replies
43
Views
18K
PandaBear
Back
Top Bottom