Mac Versus PC Debate Has Never Been Clearer(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Mac Versus PC Debate Has Never Been Clearer
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/23/the-mac-versus-pc-debate-has-never-been-clearer/
69 comments
The difference:
when my iphone's mic inexplicably died, the apple store just replaced the unit. I swung by a store, they confirmed the broken hardware, grabbed a new device, swapped the sim card and i went home and restored from my backup. it took 10 minutes in the store and 10 more at home.
when my 360 died, microsoft left it up to their partner (best buy). who hassled me about their absurd return policy despite my having purchased their extended service plan that clearly covered the situation. after a frustrating experience that required forty-five minutes of my time and escalation past the first tier of management, i did get new hardware.
I then got home and found out that the XBox Live content i'd purchased was tied to my old (now-dead) hardware. If i didn't have an active internet connection, it couldn't be used on the new hardware. Most times I'm connected, so it wasn't a -huge- deal -- but it still bit me in the ass a few times until Microsoft released their fix for the DRM situation (18 months later).
To sum-up: the value Apple offers isn't in the hardware specs. It's in the single point of responsibility, excellent customer service and lack of bullshit.
I don't know a single person who fits the straw man of 'buying apple to be cool'. Everyone I actually know who owns apple products switched out of sheer frustration with the Microsoft model of eighteen levels of indirection and blame game nonsense whenever anything goes wrong.
when my 360 died, microsoft left it up to their partner (best buy). who hassled me about their absurd return policy despite my having purchased their extended service plan that clearly covered the situation. after a frustrating experience that required forty-five minutes of my time and escalation past the first tier of management, i did get new hardware.
I then got home and found out that the XBox Live content i'd purchased was tied to my old (now-dead) hardware. If i didn't have an active internet connection, it couldn't be used on the new hardware. Most times I'm connected, so it wasn't a -huge- deal -- but it still bit me in the ass a few times until Microsoft released their fix for the DRM situation (18 months later).
To sum-up: the value Apple offers isn't in the hardware specs. It's in the single point of responsibility, excellent customer service and lack of bullshit.
I don't know a single person who fits the straw man of 'buying apple to be cool'. Everyone I actually know who owns apple products switched out of sheer frustration with the Microsoft model of eighteen levels of indirection and blame game nonsense whenever anything goes wrong.
I've not been paying attention lately but for the first few generations of iPods, the manufacturing scale and some key prepayments for flash memory (they just recently prepaid another half-billion(!) to samsung) meant that iPods were very price competitive.
It appears to be very difficult for people to see this though. When the original iPod came out, some people were claiming it was over-priced while other people were removing the hard-drive and selling it on for more than the cost of the entire iPod.
Also if, when you compare Macs and PCs, you do so in terms of "HW power" then you are missing the biggest part of their value proposition: software.
It appears to be very difficult for people to see this though. When the original iPod came out, some people were claiming it was over-priced while other people were removing the hard-drive and selling it on for more than the cost of the entire iPod.
Also if, when you compare Macs and PCs, you do so in terms of "HW power" then you are missing the biggest part of their value proposition: software.
Last time I looked almost all non-Mac high-end PCs suffered from "Klavierlack"-Syndrome. I don't know how it translates into english, but it is that cheesy shiny coating.
There are competitors who can create good high end PCs, but at the moment they suffer from a severe case of bad taste. Maybe most producers being Asian doesn't help either - nothing against them, just the tastes seem to be different.
There are competitors who can create good high end PCs, but at the moment they suffer from a severe case of bad taste. Maybe most producers being Asian doesn't help either - nothing against them, just the tastes seem to be different.
Being Asian myself, I concur that we tend to have questionable tastes. It probably has something to do with the cultures going through an identity crisis.
This is most pronounced in car designs. Japanese and Korean cars designs generally look like they are "trying too hard", especially in the recent years in their high-end models. Maybe they are going for the funky-factor of the ricers, I don't know. British, Italian, and French cars usually look the least desperate. German and American cars are somewhere in the middle. Just my opinion.
This is most pronounced in car designs. Japanese and Korean cars designs generally look like they are "trying too hard", especially in the recent years in their high-end models. Maybe they are going for the funky-factor of the ricers, I don't know. British, Italian, and French cars usually look the least desperate. German and American cars are somewhere in the middle. Just my opinion.
"Being Asian myself, I concur that we tend to have questionable tastes. "
Being Asian myself, I concur we have different tastes. ;-)
Most Asian cultures(Japanese, Indian etc)have their own aesthetic sensibilities. I concur that they are different from the "default" western sense of style. I just don't think it is true Asians have "questionable" taste!
NB: I am not getting into culture wars etc or claiming victimization etc, I just think that sentence is not true.
Being Asian myself, I concur we have different tastes. ;-)
Most Asian cultures(Japanese, Indian etc)have their own aesthetic sensibilities. I concur that they are different from the "default" western sense of style. I just don't think it is true Asians have "questionable" taste!
NB: I am not getting into culture wars etc or claiming victimization etc, I just think that sentence is not true.
I probably should've written a disclaimer as to indicate my opinion. :)
To be more specific, perhaps I should've emphasized that "modern" Asian cultures have questionable tastes, which is in direct contrast to traditional Asian sensibilities. I feel that modern Asian cultures are too busy imitating what's trendy in the west. It doesn't help the fact that instability of the past century made people lose faith in their indigineous cultures, while the western culture has evolved quite a bit since to adapt to changes of the world, thus leaving a big gap to catch up.
I'd venture that the vast portion of the old Asian cultures are appreciated now-a-days merely for their exotic aspects, even by Asian people themselves. Whatever is preserved for practical reasons don't always fit in a coherent manner, there are plenty of rough edges to work out.
I guess a bad analogy would be that Asian culture is like Unix, Apple is Europe, Windows is USA, China is BSD, and Japan is Ubuntu. The kernel is the philosophy, command line is the traditional culture, GUI is the pop culture, and the internet is globalization. Windows eventually took over and became more accessible over time with its killer GUI apps. For the time being, Unix lacks the ecosystem to build killer GUI apps, so they created Wine to run Windows apps. There are also plenty of native Unix GUI apps that sprang up, but most are created in response to their existing commercial counterparts, and many of their GUIs are imitations. FreeBSD has been around for a while, went through several regime changes, and is still kinda authoritarian with its userland programs. Ubuntu is later to the game, has the most success in adapting to modern GUI needs, but there's still some distance to go to catch up to Apple and perhaps Windows. Even though Unix is weak in GUI stuff, it's strong as servers, especially since the internet became popular.
Sorry about the silly analogy, perhaps I need to take a nap. :)
To be more specific, perhaps I should've emphasized that "modern" Asian cultures have questionable tastes, which is in direct contrast to traditional Asian sensibilities. I feel that modern Asian cultures are too busy imitating what's trendy in the west. It doesn't help the fact that instability of the past century made people lose faith in their indigineous cultures, while the western culture has evolved quite a bit since to adapt to changes of the world, thus leaving a big gap to catch up.
I'd venture that the vast portion of the old Asian cultures are appreciated now-a-days merely for their exotic aspects, even by Asian people themselves. Whatever is preserved for practical reasons don't always fit in a coherent manner, there are plenty of rough edges to work out.
I guess a bad analogy would be that Asian culture is like Unix, Apple is Europe, Windows is USA, China is BSD, and Japan is Ubuntu. The kernel is the philosophy, command line is the traditional culture, GUI is the pop culture, and the internet is globalization. Windows eventually took over and became more accessible over time with its killer GUI apps. For the time being, Unix lacks the ecosystem to build killer GUI apps, so they created Wine to run Windows apps. There are also plenty of native Unix GUI apps that sprang up, but most are created in response to their existing commercial counterparts, and many of their GUIs are imitations. FreeBSD has been around for a while, went through several regime changes, and is still kinda authoritarian with its userland programs. Ubuntu is later to the game, has the most success in adapting to modern GUI needs, but there's still some distance to go to catch up to Apple and perhaps Windows. Even though Unix is weak in GUI stuff, it's strong as servers, especially since the internet became popular.
Sorry about the silly analogy, perhaps I need to take a nap. :)
My favorite notebook maker used to be Samsung (Korean I think), but unfortunately their latest line also has the piano lacquer problem.
Also, all the makers have far too many options to choose from.
Both seem like solvable problems to me, but perhaps they are doing well enough as it is?
Also, all the makers have far too many options to choose from.
Both seem like solvable problems to me, but perhaps they are doing well enough as it is?
Klavierlack is "piano lacquer". You see that in some high-end automotive advertising.. "black piano lacquer wood trim".
Sony makes decent high-end hardware... and then cripples it with loads of pre-installed crapware.
I generally buy Mac laptops and build my desktop machines, but at the right price-to-hardware ratio I wouldn't mind buying a machine with Vista and pre-installed crapware, I would wipe it as soon as I got it.
What's the best thing to do to make a high end PC look good? Make it out of carbon fiber?
A lot of them looked fine before the piano lacquer abomination. Aluminum is classic, but other variants where OK, too (why not carbon fiber?). I guess there is also experimentation.
Also go for simplicity, I suppose. No fake parts designed to look "high end" in a phony way (kind of like "spoilers" on cars).
To me the utmost example of bad taste is the leather coating ASUS is going for in their latest creations. But then I don't like leather in general.
Just try to remove as many superfluous parts and elements as possible I guess. Just as Apple does - battery covers are superfluous. Mouse buttons are superfluous. Multimedia buttons are superfluous. Shiny areas anywhere but on the display are superfluous. And so on...
Important: large borders around the screen are superfluous and look cheap.
I can't think of a situation where multiple colors would look good (ie notebook cover red, bottom black), but I am not a designer.
Also go for simplicity, I suppose. No fake parts designed to look "high end" in a phony way (kind of like "spoilers" on cars).
To me the utmost example of bad taste is the leather coating ASUS is going for in their latest creations. But then I don't like leather in general.
Just try to remove as many superfluous parts and elements as possible I guess. Just as Apple does - battery covers are superfluous. Mouse buttons are superfluous. Multimedia buttons are superfluous. Shiny areas anywhere but on the display are superfluous. And so on...
Important: large borders around the screen are superfluous and look cheap.
I can't think of a situation where multiple colors would look good (ie notebook cover red, bottom black), but I am not a designer.
I think it's pretty clear if you want something without the viruses/spyware and is less annoying you get a Mac, as long as you can afford it. If you are short for money you end up on a Windows PC. Or at least that is perception amongst the general public.
I don't think Apple have any interest in selling something at lower price points, because like Sony, Porsche etc. their brand is of a better quality product which of course should cost more.
SGI, Sun, HP all used to sell high end workstations at the top the market (~2-20x more than what Apple charged at the time) - that market got eaten by PCs when they couldn't differentiate anymore. Unlike those high end machines, Apple has no performance advantage over PCs. Apple's only real difference is the OS.
Apple's emerging threat is Linux/Open Source, which has many of the same advantages OS X over Windows does and of course was good enough for Apple to take a kernel, browser and printing system from. Linux/Open Source doesn't have to be better than OS X - it just has to be better than Windows and good enough that people don't want to spend extra on a Mac.
Edit: this is classic "The Innovator's Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
I don't think Apple have any interest in selling something at lower price points, because like Sony, Porsche etc. their brand is of a better quality product which of course should cost more.
SGI, Sun, HP all used to sell high end workstations at the top the market (~2-20x more than what Apple charged at the time) - that market got eaten by PCs when they couldn't differentiate anymore. Unlike those high end machines, Apple has no performance advantage over PCs. Apple's only real difference is the OS.
Apple's emerging threat is Linux/Open Source, which has many of the same advantages OS X over Windows does and of course was good enough for Apple to take a kernel, browser and printing system from. Linux/Open Source doesn't have to be better than OS X - it just has to be better than Windows and good enough that people don't want to spend extra on a Mac.
Edit: this is classic "The Innovator's Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
I don't think for a second that Linux/Open Source is an emerging threat to OS X, sorry.
To be honest - as a relatively new Ubuntu user - and an occasional OSX user - trying to get stuff done on the mac is beginning to annoy me more and more.
Apple make some fantastic software - the iLife suite is pretty awesome. That might be reason enough to buy one - (and the hardware design is typically good as well). But just looking at the OS - and what I use the system for on a day to day basis - and Apple's advantage in the OS space is a lot less than it used to be. (And snow leopard doesn't look like changing that from an end user perspective)
Apple make some fantastic software - the iLife suite is pretty awesome. That might be reason enough to buy one - (and the hardware design is typically good as well). But just looking at the OS - and what I use the system for on a day to day basis - and Apple's advantage in the OS space is a lot less than it used to be. (And snow leopard doesn't look like changing that from an end user perspective)
rythie said,
"Apple's emerging threat is Linux/Open Source, because " [reasons]
to which you (mikecuesta)replied
"I don't think for a second that Linux/Open Source is an emerging threat to OS X, " with no rationale or logic to support that viewpoint.
"I don't think X", without supporting reasons is an almost meaningless response in a discussion. I am surprised it got so many upvotes. Just imagine someone responded to you with "Oh yeah? I do think so" without providing any rationale.
Your response could validate rythie's "classical innovator's dilemma" argument, since in a classic innovator's dilemma the proponents of the disrupted product never "think for a second" that the disrupting product is "an emerging threat" till it is too late.
"Apple's emerging threat is Linux/Open Source, because " [reasons]
to which you (mikecuesta)replied
"I don't think for a second that Linux/Open Source is an emerging threat to OS X, " with no rationale or logic to support that viewpoint.
"I don't think X", without supporting reasons is an almost meaningless response in a discussion. I am surprised it got so many upvotes. Just imagine someone responded to you with "Oh yeah? I do think so" without providing any rationale.
Your response could validate rythie's "classical innovator's dilemma" argument, since in a classic innovator's dilemma the proponents of the disrupted product never "think for a second" that the disrupting product is "an emerging threat" till it is too late.
It is also pretty clear that if you want to play high end games on your computer, you buy a PC. I'm not sure it will be this way forever- if Mac continues to gain popularity more games will probably be released for Mac- but as it stands Mac isn't even an option for gamers like me (or any other non windows OS).
It is also pretty clear that if you do play high end games you end up spending a lot on hardware upgrades.
I doubt that the Mac can really compete in the market for high end games since most of the machines it sells are not very upgradeable.
I doubt that the Mac can really compete in the market for high end games since most of the machines it sells are not very upgradeable.
The age of PC gaming being a driving force behind sales is coming to an end though. It's just too expensive and too much of a hassle, both for developers and end-users, which is why console games are bringing in over twice as much revenue than PC games these days.
A market for enthusiast PC gamers who value the customisability they get will, of course, persist, but the mainstream is going elsewhere and moving into gaming appliances like consoles. And if somebody's got an XBox 360 or PS3 for their gaming needs, does it really matter to them how well their computer plays games?
The trend in gaming right now is working in Apple's favour, not against it and the fact that Apple does not have a place in its line-up for a customisable gaming machine is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
A market for enthusiast PC gamers who value the customisability they get will, of course, persist, but the mainstream is going elsewhere and moving into gaming appliances like consoles. And if somebody's got an XBox 360 or PS3 for their gaming needs, does it really matter to them how well their computer plays games?
The trend in gaming right now is working in Apple's favour, not against it and the fact that Apple does not have a place in its line-up for a customisable gaming machine is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
This also works in Linux's favor too - I have a Wii.
That's probably never going to happen though.
Another big reason why Apple fans pay a premium is for the seamless integration experience that doesn't make you think. Since Apple controls 100% of the hardware it can ensure that there are never any problems like x drivers that crash randomly and take your system down.
Linux will always be oriented towards the hobbyist type that, when things break down, opens up the box and tinkers inside. Linux can't control the hardware it's deployed on so it'll always be at a massive disadvantage.
Another big reason why Apple fans pay a premium is for the seamless integration experience that doesn't make you think. Since Apple controls 100% of the hardware it can ensure that there are never any problems like x drivers that crash randomly and take your system down.
Linux will always be oriented towards the hobbyist type that, when things break down, opens up the box and tinkers inside. Linux can't control the hardware it's deployed on so it'll always be at a massive disadvantage.
I used a Windows XP laptop for the first time in ages yesterday, it struck me just how cumbersome that is compared to Linux. This is the process I saw:
I inserted a USB thumb drive, it asked me if I want to install something or other, giving some warning that Microsoft hadn't approved it or something. Then I plugged in a mouse - it did the same thing. Then I started Office and again with something about installing and then asked my name. Even that process is simplified since someone had already installed/bought Office which doesn't normally come with as full version on most machines nowadays.
To do the same on a fresh install of Ubuntu I just plug in the USB stick and double click - I never get asked anything.
I would say Ubuntu is already better than Windows XP.
I inserted a USB thumb drive, it asked me if I want to install something or other, giving some warning that Microsoft hadn't approved it or something. Then I plugged in a mouse - it did the same thing. Then I started Office and again with something about installing and then asked my name. Even that process is simplified since someone had already installed/bought Office which doesn't normally come with as full version on most machines nowadays.
To do the same on a fresh install of Ubuntu I just plug in the USB stick and double click - I never get asked anything.
I would say Ubuntu is already better than Windows XP.
There's a chance Ubuntu is better than the years-old operating system. I've had Ubuntu driver issues with all three of my attempted installs, but if I hadn't had those issues I might prefer it to Windows XP for some things.
That said, Windows 7 (and even most of Windows Vista) is more polished than Ubuntu in its current state, and its plug-and-play is much better.
That said, Windows 7 (and even most of Windows Vista) is more polished than Ubuntu in its current state, and its plug-and-play is much better.
If Windows 7 is as good as people say that it's self would take a cut into Apple's products.
*its, not it's. :-)
Windows 7 isn't mindblowing. I actually dislike a lot about it. Microsoft doesn't have a clue regarding their design.
That said, when you plug in a mouse it works without complaining. My point was that the specific gripe ("Windows XP has a lot of noise") was taken care of in Vista and is now fairly polished for Windows 7.
Windows 7 isn't mindblowing. I actually dislike a lot about it. Microsoft doesn't have a clue regarding their design.
That said, when you plug in a mouse it works without complaining. My point was that the specific gripe ("Windows XP has a lot of noise") was taken care of in Vista and is now fairly polished for Windows 7.
[deleted]
Linux can't control the hardware it's deployed on so it'll always be at a massive disadvantage.
What do you mean?
Any vendor can take Linux and tailor it to their hardware (e.g. Tivo) and make it a seamless experience for the enduser. You might not recognize it as Linux at that point, but it still is Linux and that is one of its design potentials (if not goals).
What do you mean?
Any vendor can take Linux and tailor it to their hardware (e.g. Tivo) and make it a seamless experience for the enduser. You might not recognize it as Linux at that point, but it still is Linux and that is one of its design potentials (if not goals).
That's not to say someone couldn't come along and do with Linux what Apple did with Mach/BSD/NeXT. A focused Linux-based OS with a seamless new UI and app suite (and good APIs) could be great. In fact, that's one of the things that I like about the Chrome OS idea, no matter how silly it might seem to just throw Chrome on a "bag of drivers."
The problem, of course, is the effort. Software is hard.
The problem, of course, is the effort. Software is hard.
Apple basically started from scratch in 2002. A big company with a strong consumer brand, proven track record and lots of cash could do it. Google is such a company. Especially coupled with a paradine shift to web apps and a clear revenue model as a result. I wrote about this here: http://blog.richardcunningham.co.uk/2009/07/what-googles-chr...
Apple did not start from scratch in 2002.
Mac OS X got it's first (server) release in 1999. And even that was a reboot of Nextstep which was originally released in 1989.
Of course, the whole point of Chrome OS is (apparently) to not have a traditional GUI and apps, just a browser, which is most of the stuff Apple had to add onto BSD.
Mac OS X got it's first (server) release in 1999. And even that was a reboot of Nextstep which was originally released in 1989.
Of course, the whole point of Chrome OS is (apparently) to not have a traditional GUI and apps, just a browser, which is most of the stuff Apple had to add onto BSD.
Agreed.
I meant my comment in the context of the message I replied to. In that in 2002 they first tried to push a new OS to the desktop market as it was then. From what I heard about it, nextstep was not anymore advanced compared to the rest of the market than Linux/Ubuntu/Gnome is now to it's market.
I don't believe any company could afford to start back right down to the kernel and low level libraries for a new desktop OS, even it was just going to run a web browser. I would say that any competitor to Apple and Microsoft would have to use a Linux kernel, CUPS etc. as a base - just as OS X used NextStep/BSD as base.
I meant my comment in the context of the message I replied to. In that in 2002 they first tried to push a new OS to the desktop market as it was then. From what I heard about it, nextstep was not anymore advanced compared to the rest of the market than Linux/Ubuntu/Gnome is now to it's market.
I don't believe any company could afford to start back right down to the kernel and low level libraries for a new desktop OS, even it was just going to run a web browser. I would say that any competitor to Apple and Microsoft would have to use a Linux kernel, CUPS etc. as a base - just as OS X used NextStep/BSD as base.
[deleted]
The Porsche/Camry analogy is slightly flawed, because it doesn't take into account the effect of OS adoption and app availability.
It's more like the choice between a hydrogen Porsche and a gas Camry. In that case, even if Porsche are content to sell a few, high-margin vehicles, they will have to worry about whether the model is sustainable given that if customers can't find a place to fill it up, they're not going to buy one no matter how nice they are.
It's more like the choice between a hydrogen Porsche and a gas Camry. In that case, even if Porsche are content to sell a few, high-margin vehicles, they will have to worry about whether the model is sustainable given that if customers can't find a place to fill it up, they're not going to buy one no matter how nice they are.
But there are places to fill it up. A common sentiment I run into when I tell people that I use a Mac is that people seem to think they can't do the same things on a Mac that they already do on a PC.
Hell, most people don't even know MS Office exists on the Mac.
In fact, after using a Mac for 3 years now I have to say that for a lot of day-to-day tasks, Mac apps beat Windows apps hands down. FTP? Use Cyberduck, it's infinitely superior to any free FTP client on Windows. IM? Adium is classier than any of the all-in-one clients on Windows (including Pidgin). I can go on...
The point is, whatever you used to do on Windows can all be done on a Mac (save for a few domain-specific things like drafting or gaming). And the difference is, Mac developers actually give a damn about UI, which is a lot more than can be said for most Windows apps.
P.S. Whoever decided that unlabeled, nondescript, 16x16 icons lined up in multiple rows at the top of the screen is good for usability needs a serious reality check.
Hell, most people don't even know MS Office exists on the Mac.
In fact, after using a Mac for 3 years now I have to say that for a lot of day-to-day tasks, Mac apps beat Windows apps hands down. FTP? Use Cyberduck, it's infinitely superior to any free FTP client on Windows. IM? Adium is classier than any of the all-in-one clients on Windows (including Pidgin). I can go on...
The point is, whatever you used to do on Windows can all be done on a Mac (save for a few domain-specific things like drafting or gaming). And the difference is, Mac developers actually give a damn about UI, which is a lot more than can be said for most Windows apps.
P.S. Whoever decided that unlabeled, nondescript, 16x16 icons lined up in multiple rows at the top of the screen is good for usability needs a serious reality check.
"Adium is classier than any of the all-in-one clients on Windows (including Pidgin)."
Adium and Pidgin both use libpurple, the same IM backend. If you want to talk about design aesthetic differences between open source and the Mac ecosystem, it's probably the definitive example.
Adium and Pidgin both use libpurple, the same IM backend. If you want to talk about design aesthetic differences between open source and the Mac ecosystem, it's probably the definitive example.
That's my point precisely - Adium doesn't do anything that Pidgin cannot, but the UI between the two apps is worlds apart. IMHO it's the classic example of the failing of open source - too much functionality, no way for the layman to get to them.
Except the shiny icons and Aqua, i don't see much difference in UI between Pidgin and Adium. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what i see, Adium is just Pidgin "localized" for Mac.
The problem (with UI) is not that Windows developers don't care about it, its that the barrier to entry is very low, and the potential rewards are very high when working with Windows. Because of the market share Windows has, when someone decides "You know, I'm going to make an App that does X", they're usually going to write it for Windows, simply because that's where the market is.
Not only that, but the people using Macs are largely using Macs because of the UI, so there is a much higher standard set for developers. In general, it seems, people using Macs have a much higher expectation for their Software, which means that the general crap that Windows developers put out would never fly on a Mac.
Not only that, but the people using Macs are largely using Macs because of the UI, so there is a much higher standard set for developers. In general, it seems, people using Macs have a much higher expectation for their Software, which means that the general crap that Windows developers put out would never fly on a Mac.
Wow, if you actually look at the hardware is it really that high-end?
It wasn't the hardware the convinced me to buy a mac, it was OS X. A company I interned at lent me a powerbook, and after about a week of using it I had basically stopped using my thinkpad altogether. The user experience of windows XP always felt super clunky and glued together after that.
Also, OS X was my first real exposure to working in a unix based environment. Some people may disagree, but I discovered a definite preference for working in unix/linux. I eventually replaced the OS on my old desktop with Ubuntu, which is nice, but it's still hard for me to imagine a non-technical person like my girlfriend using Ubuntu. However, my girlfriend has switched over to OS X as well, and is much happier than when she was on windows xp. I guess I see OS X as basically being a linux distro with an excellent user experience.
Of course, your mileage may differ.
Also, OS X was my first real exposure to working in a unix based environment. Some people may disagree, but I discovered a definite preference for working in unix/linux. I eventually replaced the OS on my old desktop with Ubuntu, which is nice, but it's still hard for me to imagine a non-technical person like my girlfriend using Ubuntu. However, my girlfriend has switched over to OS X as well, and is much happier than when she was on windows xp. I guess I see OS X as basically being a linux distro with an excellent user experience.
Of course, your mileage may differ.
I didn't mind the user experience of XP; in fact, there are a lot of things I still prefer in Windows over OS X.
However, the BSD back-end of OS X has completely sold me on mac laptops as a work machine forever. (I know I can install Cygwin, or switch to an actual linux desktop, but those are the things that feel clunky and glued together to me.)
However, the BSD back-end of OS X has completely sold me on mac laptops as a work machine forever. (I know I can install Cygwin, or switch to an actual linux desktop, but those are the things that feel clunky and glued together to me.)
Hardware in terms of ram, graphics card, hard disk: Not in a distinguishable way.
Hardware in terms of firm design, usability, compactness, and aesthetic: I can't think of anything that comes close to Apple's design. I can barely think of computers that come close to looking as good, and those are ones that don't feel good when you're actually using them.
Hardware in terms of firm design, usability, compactness, and aesthetic: I can't think of anything that comes close to Apple's design. I can barely think of computers that come close to looking as good, and those are ones that don't feel good when you're actually using them.
Open up a Mac Pro, then open up a Dell. You don't need to be an electrical engineer to appreciate the difference.
It's always fun to actually compare the specs of comparable products:
(An HP) http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det...
http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MB871LL/A?mco=...
Very, very similar. The apple's CPU is about 200 dollars more, and its video card about 100 dollars more. But the difference in the computers' prices is about 1500 dollars. To me, it's a pretty big ripoff, but I guess that's the value of branding. BMW and Lexus are also ripoffs by any objective standard.
(An HP) http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det...
http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MB871LL/A?mco=...
Very, very similar. The apple's CPU is about 200 dollars more, and its video card about 100 dollars more. But the difference in the computers' prices is about 1500 dollars. To me, it's a pretty big ripoff, but I guess that's the value of branding. BMW and Lexus are also ripoffs by any objective standard.
> BMW and Lexus are also ripoffs by any objective standard.
Very well said. I bought a mac laptop because I enjoy working on it much more than I do a windows PC; I didn't make the choice by comparing the prices of the components, or the relative value of the chemicals involved in assembling the thing.
Very well said. I bought a mac laptop because I enjoy working on it much more than I do a windows PC; I didn't make the choice by comparing the prices of the components, or the relative value of the chemicals involved in assembling the thing.
From some standpoints, yes. The design and build quality of machines like the MacBook Pro certainly trumps anything available from commodity PC makers.
It certainly trumps something that sells for $600, but is the build quality all that much better than a comparably priced ThinkPad or one of Dell's new high-end machines?
The only real hardware advantage that I can find which isn't available elsewhere is the nice, fully internal battery that the Pros come with now. You can get one that performs similarly from Lenovo, but it doesn't look as elegant.
The only real hardware advantage that I can find which isn't available elsewhere is the nice, fully internal battery that the Pros come with now. You can get one that performs similarly from Lenovo, but it doesn't look as elegant.
Yes, I do think it's better. I've got a ThinkPad T400, a white MacBook right here (and my wife has a Pro).
The T400 has five buttons around the trackpad... and Apple accomplishes the same functionality with one trackpad and one button (and no button on the new models).
The T400 has a lit keyboard toggled by a key. The light is actually just an LED pointing down from the lid. I can see the PCB it's attached to. Compare that to Apple's ambient light sensing backlit keys.
There is a key on the T400 to zoom the screen, but it just changes the resolution! Compare that to control+two-finger-drag on the MacBook, which smoothly zooms in on any region of the screen.
The T400 has a physical switch on a corner of the case to turn off the wireless hardware. The MacBook provides it through a menu.
The T400 for some reason still has a plain old full-sized VGA connector with screw posts, compared to mini-DVI.
It's a holistic thing, I guess. A design is either "together" or not. Lenovo doesn't have it.
The T400 has five buttons around the trackpad... and Apple accomplishes the same functionality with one trackpad and one button (and no button on the new models).
The T400 has a lit keyboard toggled by a key. The light is actually just an LED pointing down from the lid. I can see the PCB it's attached to. Compare that to Apple's ambient light sensing backlit keys.
There is a key on the T400 to zoom the screen, but it just changes the resolution! Compare that to control+two-finger-drag on the MacBook, which smoothly zooms in on any region of the screen.
The T400 has a physical switch on a corner of the case to turn off the wireless hardware. The MacBook provides it through a menu.
The T400 for some reason still has a plain old full-sized VGA connector with screw posts, compared to mini-DVI.
It's a holistic thing, I guess. A design is either "together" or not. Lenovo doesn't have it.
Some of these points have pros and cons, actually.
The T400 appears to have five buttons around the trackpad because it has an exta "trackpoint" red nub in the keyboard, so you can handle cursor, scrolling, and typing without moving either hand from the keyboard--indispensable to all the people who have learned to use it.
The T400 has an LED to illuminate keyboard and slightly more so you can turn it on or off when you need to, rather than when an ambient light sensor thinks best, and you can hold anything under the light to see it. (Think airplanes.) Very useful.
The T400 has a physical switch to turn off wireless hardware so you can do it when the machine is off, quickly, without booting up and using a menu, and so you can physically verify its status.
The T400 has connectors for devices most often found in its environment. ThinkPad evolves its connectors, but a little more conservatively than Apple. Which plan is best depends on what particular users need to connect. You also get some complaints that a new Mac can't connect to existing peripherals.
Design is vital, Apple has some great design points, but ThinkPad has some different but equally great design points. Read David Hill's blog (http://lenovoblogs.com/designmatters/) for insight into the meticulous design thinking behind ThinkPad.
The T400 appears to have five buttons around the trackpad because it has an exta "trackpoint" red nub in the keyboard, so you can handle cursor, scrolling, and typing without moving either hand from the keyboard--indispensable to all the people who have learned to use it.
The T400 has an LED to illuminate keyboard and slightly more so you can turn it on or off when you need to, rather than when an ambient light sensor thinks best, and you can hold anything under the light to see it. (Think airplanes.) Very useful.
The T400 has a physical switch to turn off wireless hardware so you can do it when the machine is off, quickly, without booting up and using a menu, and so you can physically verify its status.
The T400 has connectors for devices most often found in its environment. ThinkPad evolves its connectors, but a little more conservatively than Apple. Which plan is best depends on what particular users need to connect. You also get some complaints that a new Mac can't connect to existing peripherals.
Design is vital, Apple has some great design points, but ThinkPad has some different but equally great design points. Read David Hill's blog (http://lenovoblogs.com/designmatters/) for insight into the meticulous design thinking behind ThinkPad.
You can override the ambient light sensor easily. It's just a handy default.
"The T400 for some reason still has a plain old full-sized VGA connector with screw posts, compared to mini-DVI."
Why would you want mini-DVI? Mini-DVI is a proprietary Apple-only connector that forces you to buy an adapter so that you can connect all other hardware to it. By the way, the T400s has DisplayPort, which, OTOH, is an open standard.
Why would you want mini-DVI? Mini-DVI is a proprietary Apple-only connector that forces you to buy an adapter so that you can connect all other hardware to it. By the way, the T400s has DisplayPort, which, OTOH, is an open standard.
The thinkpad has a trackpoint/nipple mouse. The macbook is limited with just a touchpad.
The macbook keys light up at inconvenient times, the thinkpads only lights up when I want it to -- and it lets me read dead-tree notes easily
I've never used screen zooming so I wont speak to it - the mac solution sounds nice though.
The T400 has an obvious, provable way of quickly disconnecting from a network. It's like pulling out the netword cord. And it has an option to turn that off in software.
The T400 connects directly to my projector, my monitor at home, my cheap plasma tv. For the mac I've got to drag around an extra converter thing.
There are plenty of designs you can knock as not being "together". The thinkpad design is pretty well tested though.
The macbook keys light up at inconvenient times, the thinkpads only lights up when I want it to -- and it lets me read dead-tree notes easily
I've never used screen zooming so I wont speak to it - the mac solution sounds nice though.
The T400 has an obvious, provable way of quickly disconnecting from a network. It's like pulling out the netword cord. And it has an option to turn that off in software.
The T400 connects directly to my projector, my monitor at home, my cheap plasma tv. For the mac I've got to drag around an extra converter thing.
There are plenty of designs you can knock as not being "together". The thinkpad design is pretty well tested though.
In less than 3 years my sister's 1700$ dell lost 5 keys (she was typing on the rubber under the keys) and 15% of the screen stopped working (thin lines from top to bottom). She replaced it a few months ago with a 2400$ apple laptop. She did not need more speed, or memory just something that would survive constant use.
PS: She did not have the free time to mail it back to be fixed, and waited for a break so she could migrate to the next machine. I suggested a new Dell every 18 months, but that was not worth the hassle. And worst case she can show up at the apple store and get it fixed while she waits.
PS: She did not have the free time to mail it back to be fixed, and waited for a break so she could migrate to the next machine. I suggested a new Dell every 18 months, but that was not worth the hassle. And worst case she can show up at the apple store and get it fixed while she waits.
Why did your sister need a $2400 apple laptop if not for the speed and memory? If you are in the US at least you shouldn't have to spend that much for a new Mac. The 13" MBP starts $1200 and you can get a 15.4" MBP starting at $1700 from Amazon, with free shipping and no sales tax (in the majority of states).
It's not about need, she bumped the RAM, Disk, and added the AppleCare Protection Plan because she felt it was a reasonable thing to do. Honestly, spending less than 3k for something you are going to use several hours a day for a few years seems reasonable to me.
Hardware is not what defines “high-end” any more.
Go into Best Buy and you’ll see RAM, CPU speed and hard disk sizes listed on the features tags. Those specs are increasingly meaningless for most consumers as any computer in the store will do what they need.
The more they focus on these specs, the more PC makers allow their product to become a commodity.
Design, usability, buying experience and after-sales service are what really differentiate computers. If any computer is sufficient to do my daily tasks, I’m going to look for the cheapest one available. But I’ll pay more if you can sell me on those intangible benefits. That’s the high-end of the market.
Go into Best Buy and you’ll see RAM, CPU speed and hard disk sizes listed on the features tags. Those specs are increasingly meaningless for most consumers as any computer in the store will do what they need.
The more they focus on these specs, the more PC makers allow their product to become a commodity.
Design, usability, buying experience and after-sales service are what really differentiate computers. If any computer is sufficient to do my daily tasks, I’m going to look for the cheapest one available. But I’ll pay more if you can sell me on those intangible benefits. That’s the high-end of the market.
I think the author spun his article with the concept that a Mac is 'better'. In my opinion the real point of the article should have been that Apple is branding their products as 'premium'. Just like anything in life just because someone has branded themselves as 'premium' certainly does not preclude the possibility there is something better out there. In fact I think Lenovo markets their laptops in a similar way by catering to the business user. It isn't to say Dell/HP don't make a products that can easily compete with a ThinkPad, it's just that when you think of a 'business' laptop Lenovo wants you to think of a ThinkPad.
Having said that I own a ThinkPad W500 and a Macbook and think both have strong/weak points, but given a choice of only having one I would probably stick with the Macbook, simply because I can do anything I need to with it (a la bootcamp).
Having said that I own a ThinkPad W500 and a Macbook and think both have strong/weak points, but given a choice of only having one I would probably stick with the Macbook, simply because I can do anything I need to with it (a la bootcamp).
"Things are more like they are today than they have ever been before."
There are only two considerations, really: do you (or the end user you are helping) prefer OS X or Windows, and are your skills/available time competitive with the Apple hardware premium?
The 'debate' consists of large numbers of people insisting that their answers to the foregoing questions are somehow 'objective'. They're not. If I won the lotto tomorrow I'd buy the most expensive G5 and install Windows 7 on it.
There are only two considerations, really: do you (or the end user you are helping) prefer OS X or Windows, and are your skills/available time competitive with the Apple hardware premium?
The 'debate' consists of large numbers of people insisting that their answers to the foregoing questions are somehow 'objective'. They're not. If I won the lotto tomorrow I'd buy the most expensive G5 and install Windows 7 on it.
That'd be quite the trick, since the G5 was a PowerPC box that hasn't been sold for years, and Windows 7 only runs on x86.
I are l33t hax0r.
Seriously, silly me - I meant the top-end Mac Pro with the dual quads etc. I was thinking of the beautifully engineered case and internals, which I still associate with the g5.
Seriously, silly me - I meant the top-end Mac Pro with the dual quads etc. I was thinking of the beautifully engineered case and internals, which I still associate with the g5.
[deleted]
I'm a little shocked by the continued focus on aesthetics and form rather than purpose, especially from this particular audience. You guys are typically not the ignorant masses, who gives a damn what lacquer is used on your notebook, do you use it so you can sit back and stare longingly at it or so you can use the thing? Who cares what it looks like!
I recently was given the opportunity as a reward from my employer to name my next notebook, it could be anything at all, I didn't have any set price limit, I specifically got asked to just pick whatever would be the "ultimate" in computing power for me. I had a look at the mbp lines, did a few enquiries on notebookforums, and ended up with http://www.p4laptops.com.au/main/D900F_P4laptops.pdf
It looks like a big, black laptop, the vast majority of reviews I could find on it spent about 50% of the article pointing out how it was not very pretty and size and other form factor related nonsense I didn't care about, then another 25% raving on about how heavy and loud it is, and then the last 25% of the article actually examining how the tool performs for it's intended purpose! Man I hate the world at times, you people are all f*cking crazy. It's like I bought a fork and spent all my time pointing out how it wasn't very well chromed and I didn't like the way it sat in my hand, and then just toward the end there mentioned "but hell, it's really good for picking up food"
Eugh.
I recently was given the opportunity as a reward from my employer to name my next notebook, it could be anything at all, I didn't have any set price limit, I specifically got asked to just pick whatever would be the "ultimate" in computing power for me. I had a look at the mbp lines, did a few enquiries on notebookforums, and ended up with http://www.p4laptops.com.au/main/D900F_P4laptops.pdf
It looks like a big, black laptop, the vast majority of reviews I could find on it spent about 50% of the article pointing out how it was not very pretty and size and other form factor related nonsense I didn't care about, then another 25% raving on about how heavy and loud it is, and then the last 25% of the article actually examining how the tool performs for it's intended purpose! Man I hate the world at times, you people are all f*cking crazy. It's like I bought a fork and spent all my time pointing out how it wasn't very well chromed and I didn't like the way it sat in my hand, and then just toward the end there mentioned "but hell, it's really good for picking up food"
Eugh.
[deleted]
Just so everyone knows, I sold 100% of the PCs in the >$25,001 market.
It perplexes me that Apple products sell as well as they do. I find Apple's value proposition to be questionable. For example, compare an iPod to just about any comparable media player, or a Mac to a comparable PC (in terms of HW power).
I think Microsoft is very smart to point this out, as I do not think this perception has reached the general public. Also, there's a line in the commercial like, "I guess I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person." A clever way for Microsoft to imply that Mac owners are paying extra for the Apple image. This is also an idea that I do not think has really reached the general public.