US consumers flock to Mac laptops(reghardware.co.uk)
reghardware.co.uk
US consumers flock to Mac laptops
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/10/01/apple_market_share_boost/
7 comments
Exactly. Now that I have a Mac, Mac fanboys all assume I'm one of them and come up to me in the coffee shop to say, "hey, aren't we so much better than everyone else because of the computers we bought?"
I proceed to rant about all my little pet peeves about Mac OS X and say that as soon as I get around to it I'm installing Boot Camp and putting Linux on it.
I proceed to rant about all my little pet peeves about Mac OS X and say that as soon as I get around to it I'm installing Boot Camp and putting Linux on it.
Aww, those are the bad Apples.
I promise, some of us know that our system is flawed. (Not that we aren't smug, we're just realistically smug.)
The college Mac type is inevitable, though. I'm biased, though, since I'm in college and have a Mac, so I don't get Mac Smug from other people.
I promise, some of us know that our system is flawed. (Not that we aren't smug, we're just realistically smug.)
The college Mac type is inevitable, though. I'm biased, though, since I'm in college and have a Mac, so I don't get Mac Smug from other people.
An artsy friend of mine insisted that he couldn't use Mac because it was too popular. He used Vista instead.
Kind of silly, IMHO.
Kind of silly, IMHO.
I love mine!! Its a real road warrior. Got Windows, Ubuntu and Open Solaris on there and my entire itunes library...and I think for the price points are great too (and I'm from the UK and it was way more expensive than you guys pay for it, so I can see why its top on the list)
Out of curiosity: what is the advantage of having Open Solaris on your computer?
Some of the work I do involves Cramer and NetCool and its just sometimes easier to test things on that platform.
Edit: Oracle too...
Edit: Oracle too...
Is this just straight contradictory to recent analyst downgrades (and Apple's resulting stock price drop)? I never know quite what to hink of this kind of market data.
"... 20 per cent of retail notebook sales during July and August."
These numbers may not have been influenced by the credit crisis if awareness of the situation was not widespread. Or those analysts could be wrong in their predictions.
These numbers may not have been influenced by the credit crisis if awareness of the situation was not widespread. Or those analysts could be wrong in their predictions.
No, not contradictory. Apple is going down with all the other stocks. It has had a high multiple (Price of the stock/earnings) and still has IMO. The growth in Mac sales is not news and has been known by the market.
Being a hardcore geek, I love running on top of a "unix" like environment. I should flock to Linux, but Mac OS X is just prettier, and more stable. I don't know better fonts maybe? For that reason, and I know it seems small, I prefer Mac. BTW. I only use emacs and Firefox most of the time anyway.
I cannot refute the bold statement about stability, since I have no experience with Mac OS X. However, I have extensive experience with Linux and OpenBSD and I've had zero stability problems with Linux. OpenBSD is a different story.
The funny thing is that BSDs have this nimbus of being ultra-stable and bug-free; my experience is just the opposite.
The funny thing is that BSDs have this nimbus of being ultra-stable and bug-free; my experience is just the opposite.
I recently acquired a MacBook after using a variety of standard laptops with Linux installed on them.
In my experience, the Mac is better as a /consumer/ laptop, while the Linux box is better as a /geek/ laptop. I'm sure that I'll get better at getting under the Mac's hood at some point, but right now it's frustrating to have to use GUI tools for everything.
In general, everything (apps, UI) in Mac are prettier and easier to use than their *nix counterparts, but /far/ less functional.
Also, Mac OS X is internally UNIX-y enough to make me /think/ that things still work in the same way, but are different enough to make me sorely disappointed when I find out that I was mistaken.
In my experience, the Mac is better as a /consumer/ laptop, while the Linux box is better as a /geek/ laptop. I'm sure that I'll get better at getting under the Mac's hood at some point, but right now it's frustrating to have to use GUI tools for everything.
In general, everything (apps, UI) in Mac are prettier and easier to use than their *nix counterparts, but /far/ less functional.
Also, Mac OS X is internally UNIX-y enough to make me /think/ that things still work in the same way, but are different enough to make me sorely disappointed when I find out that I was mistaken.
My iPod is pretty, but "stable" and OSX are not two words I use in the same statement. I think my iPod has gone down more than my two Vista machines since I've owned them.
An iPod isn't the same as Mac OS X.
My computer crashes once every week or two, but it does that when I'm running ten stressful applications at once. Before my computer I'd never have thought of trying to burn a CD, create a movie, run diagnostics on my library, and several other things all at once. Things on Windows crashed haphazardly, unpredictably. I can run my Mac for days straight and they still go well for the most part, and when they crash it takes one reset to get it all working again.
iPods have a much lower standard, sadly, though my iPod touch hasn't crashed once since the software update.
My computer crashes once every week or two, but it does that when I'm running ten stressful applications at once. Before my computer I'd never have thought of trying to burn a CD, create a movie, run diagnostics on my library, and several other things all at once. Things on Windows crashed haphazardly, unpredictably. I can run my Mac for days straight and they still go well for the most part, and when they crash it takes one reset to get it all working again.
iPods have a much lower standard, sadly, though my iPod touch hasn't crashed once since the software update.
OS X is prettier than linux? When was the last time you tried linux? It has come along way in the past year or two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-ye1oa4N8&feature=relat...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=934741
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-ye1oa4N8&feature=relat...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=934741
I'm sorry, but you're going to be the brunt of this small mini-rant about Linux users being incredibly unaware of what we mean when we say pretty.
Fuck Compiz. It's wholly unfunctional. A rotating cube does not make something pretty, it makes it resource-intensive. Wobbly windows are not functional and they serve no purpose.
Pretty is something that looks good WHILE having a definitive meaning. The "genie" effect, for instance: it shows me exactly where I have to go if I need to restore a window. Or Expose: seeing my windows fly out and reveal themselves. Or stacks in Leopard, giving me one-click access to whatever I want one-click access to.
Pretty is trying to do something and realizing you can. It's my being in iTunes, talking to a friend about a song that came on, and realizing I could just drag the song out of iTunes to send a copy to him. That's not an advertised feature of iTunes. It's just something that you can't do in Windows Media Player or Amarok. It's something that made my life a wee bit simpler.
Pretty is my searching Help for something, being given a menu item instead of just a result, and having that item highlighted with a spinning arrow to point out the result.
Pretty is spring-loaded tabs. It's picking a color and being given a set of crayons as a visual metaphor. It's opening TextEdit for the first time and realizing that it's not just Notepad, it's a fully-featured visual text editor that can produce pretty beautiful results.
Pretty is CMD-Space-s-a-enter opening up a web browser, or CMD-Space-s-h-e-space-l-enter opening up a song. Out of the box. Without any fiddling, having an ultrafast system for opening files.
When we Mac users talk about pretty, we don't mean the fact that our windows look beautiful, although let's be honest, they do: they're minimal, they look very pretty even though they're gray, and I love how menu options appear as part of the chrome instead of having two distinct dividers apart from content (not to start talking about the lozenge button or the top menu). Pretty is how things just work. It's things making perfect logical sense as you do them. It's about whenever you wonder if you can do X, you find that you CAN do X.
Linux is not pretty. It's not it's not it's not. It takes a good screenshot nowadays, and that's more than it used to be able to do. But that doesn't make something pretty. That makes something PRETEND to be pretty. It's what's on the inside that counts, not what's on the outside.
I'm not anti-Linux. I ran Ubuntu for a year before I got OS X. I like it more than Windows, when it works, when my audio and graphics don't get messed up (and they ALWAYS do, of course). It is not pretty, though. It's pretty on the surface, pretty before you realize just how incapable it is of doing some things easily. And some Linux users are honest. My friend says that he cares only about if Linux does what he wants at no price. That I can respect. But don't say that your wobbly cubes make your OS pretty. That's like saying Vista is pretty because of Aero.
tl;dr: OS X is much, MUCH prettier than Linux. Period.
Fuck Compiz. It's wholly unfunctional. A rotating cube does not make something pretty, it makes it resource-intensive. Wobbly windows are not functional and they serve no purpose.
Pretty is something that looks good WHILE having a definitive meaning. The "genie" effect, for instance: it shows me exactly where I have to go if I need to restore a window. Or Expose: seeing my windows fly out and reveal themselves. Or stacks in Leopard, giving me one-click access to whatever I want one-click access to.
Pretty is trying to do something and realizing you can. It's my being in iTunes, talking to a friend about a song that came on, and realizing I could just drag the song out of iTunes to send a copy to him. That's not an advertised feature of iTunes. It's just something that you can't do in Windows Media Player or Amarok. It's something that made my life a wee bit simpler.
Pretty is my searching Help for something, being given a menu item instead of just a result, and having that item highlighted with a spinning arrow to point out the result.
Pretty is spring-loaded tabs. It's picking a color and being given a set of crayons as a visual metaphor. It's opening TextEdit for the first time and realizing that it's not just Notepad, it's a fully-featured visual text editor that can produce pretty beautiful results.
Pretty is CMD-Space-s-a-enter opening up a web browser, or CMD-Space-s-h-e-space-l-enter opening up a song. Out of the box. Without any fiddling, having an ultrafast system for opening files.
When we Mac users talk about pretty, we don't mean the fact that our windows look beautiful, although let's be honest, they do: they're minimal, they look very pretty even though they're gray, and I love how menu options appear as part of the chrome instead of having two distinct dividers apart from content (not to start talking about the lozenge button or the top menu). Pretty is how things just work. It's things making perfect logical sense as you do them. It's about whenever you wonder if you can do X, you find that you CAN do X.
Linux is not pretty. It's not it's not it's not. It takes a good screenshot nowadays, and that's more than it used to be able to do. But that doesn't make something pretty. That makes something PRETEND to be pretty. It's what's on the inside that counts, not what's on the outside.
I'm not anti-Linux. I ran Ubuntu for a year before I got OS X. I like it more than Windows, when it works, when my audio and graphics don't get messed up (and they ALWAYS do, of course). It is not pretty, though. It's pretty on the surface, pretty before you realize just how incapable it is of doing some things easily. And some Linux users are honest. My friend says that he cares only about if Linux does what he wants at no price. That I can respect. But don't say that your wobbly cubes make your OS pretty. That's like saying Vista is pretty because of Aero.
tl;dr: OS X is much, MUCH prettier than Linux. Period.
> "I'm sorry, but you're going to be the brunt of this small mini-rant about Linux users being incredibly unaware of what we mean when we say pretty"
Probably because you're misspelling it. It's written "functionality." You know, ease of use & all that.
I hesitate to go into specifics. A few of those you mentioned are in linux & a few aren't. Most don't really matter to me (honestly, text editors?) so I think it's just a matter of taste.
Probably because you're misspelling it. It's written "functionality." You know, ease of use & all that.
I hesitate to go into specifics. A few of those you mentioned are in linux & a few aren't. Most don't really matter to me (honestly, text editors?) so I think it's just a matter of taste.
Form and function are one and the same. Pretty things are functional, and vice versa. You can have five thousand extras and be hard to use and I wouldn't call that functional either.
The ones I mentioned were the tip of the iceberg. The point is that if you WANT to do something, you can. With Linux basically it's that if you try to do something you often need to tinker.
When we say we love our operating system, it's because of how superbly beautiful it is, and part of its beauty is how all of the small things just WORK. Linux doesn't have that. Linux is, excuse my French, shit compared to that. It's more functional if you want to go to the command line and tinker to death, but the beauty of OS X is that you don't need to do that.
I doubt you've ever used a Mac from what you've said, so it's hard to explain. But you can't point at rotating cube and use that as a counterexample, because that's not pretty OR functional. It's a waste.
The ones I mentioned were the tip of the iceberg. The point is that if you WANT to do something, you can. With Linux basically it's that if you try to do something you often need to tinker.
When we say we love our operating system, it's because of how superbly beautiful it is, and part of its beauty is how all of the small things just WORK. Linux doesn't have that. Linux is, excuse my French, shit compared to that. It's more functional if you want to go to the command line and tinker to death, but the beauty of OS X is that you don't need to do that.
I doubt you've ever used a Mac from what you've said, so it's hard to explain. But you can't point at rotating cube and use that as a counterexample, because that's not pretty OR functional. It's a waste.
You mentioned genie & expose earlier. Not only are those in compiz, but I have them turned off because of the rotating cube. I don't need a windowlist/taskbar; I have enough space that windows rarely get below other windows.
I got used to it & working on a different operating system now feels very cramped. Same as I got used to tinkering (aka customization) & using OS X feels like typing with gloves. Like I said, it's pointless to argue. A few more iterations of ubuntu & it should be easy enough for OS X users.
I got used to it & working on a different operating system now feels very cramped. Same as I got used to tinkering (aka customization) & using OS X feels like typing with gloves. Like I said, it's pointless to argue. A few more iterations of ubuntu & it should be easy enough for OS X users.
No it won't. Apple has a head start of at least several years, and Apple has not stopped innovating for the last decade. Leopard was an enormous improvement from Tiger, and Tiger was still holding its own. Apple obsoletes Apple.
The rotating cube in itself is a failure of Linux because it solves no problem. It's a multiple workstations system: plain and simple. That existed before the cube and solved the same problem. Apple implemented that with Spaces, and with 10.5.2 it ended with a product that I'd argue is better than any of the other workstation set-ups I've seen in terms of pure ease of use.
The genie and expose shouldn't HAVE to be turned off. Neither one is intensive whatsoever if implemented well. The fact of the matter is that it's there just in case that sort of thing is activated. I use Expose despite having 9 workstations, because I like running larger windows, and Expose lets me move files back and forth extremely easily. (Unsure if that works in Linux.)
The ultimate triumph of the Mac's vision is that it doesn't have spare dangly bits. It doesn't have a rotating cube, because having a cube rotate serves no purpose whatsoever. It's needless gaudy visual. Some visuals (like windows sliding on Spaces) help give you a spatial understanding of your windows. Apple has no un-needed visuals (with the possible exception of the ripple in Dashboard).
Ubuntu developers may make something that looks good on the surface as Leopard looks now. I doubt even that. I don't even doubt them being able to replicate Apple's ease of use because it is a sheer impossibility. To quote Daring Fireball: "A well-designed product is not simply harder than a poorly-designed one. It is an entire MAGNITUDE of difficulty greater."
The rotating cube in itself is a failure of Linux because it solves no problem. It's a multiple workstations system: plain and simple. That existed before the cube and solved the same problem. Apple implemented that with Spaces, and with 10.5.2 it ended with a product that I'd argue is better than any of the other workstation set-ups I've seen in terms of pure ease of use.
The genie and expose shouldn't HAVE to be turned off. Neither one is intensive whatsoever if implemented well. The fact of the matter is that it's there just in case that sort of thing is activated. I use Expose despite having 9 workstations, because I like running larger windows, and Expose lets me move files back and forth extremely easily. (Unsure if that works in Linux.)
The ultimate triumph of the Mac's vision is that it doesn't have spare dangly bits. It doesn't have a rotating cube, because having a cube rotate serves no purpose whatsoever. It's needless gaudy visual. Some visuals (like windows sliding on Spaces) help give you a spatial understanding of your windows. Apple has no un-needed visuals (with the possible exception of the ripple in Dashboard).
Ubuntu developers may make something that looks good on the surface as Leopard looks now. I doubt even that. I don't even doubt them being able to replicate Apple's ease of use because it is a sheer impossibility. To quote Daring Fireball: "A well-designed product is not simply harder than a poorly-designed one. It is an entire MAGNITUDE of difficulty greater."
If you were a hardcore geek you'd try and find a BeBox :P
http://www.josephpalmer.com/BeBox/BeBox.shtml
http://www.josephpalmer.com/BeBox/BeBox.shtml
I know you're joking, but: when did "geek" become synonymous with "doesn't care about rich user experience?" Can't you be a geek and care about things working beautifully? Because according to some people on HN (not you, omouse, this isn't against you), the minute you start worrying about aesthetic you abandon being a TRUE geek, and that's stupid and demeaning.
I got one for the sole reason to develop with Unity3D. And the iPhone. A better python environment than windows. To help develop multiplaform games and so many other reasons. It is attractive to developers as well as consumers.
Just curious: so has anyone tried running Haiku, AmigaOS or some other non-mainstream, non-UNIX-based OS on their Mac laptops?
I got two dells before my 4-yr-old iBook G4 and let me tell you, quality is king.
Dells are now pieces of crap falling apart and my iBook is still runing like new. Nothing loose, flaky or damaged at all.
You get what you pay for, I got quality and a beautiful piece of hardware.
Dells are now pieces of crap falling apart and my iBook is still runing like new. Nothing loose, flaky or damaged at all.
You get what you pay for, I got quality and a beautiful piece of hardware.
Being the owner of a 3 year old Dell Inspiron 9400 (E1705 in the US) I would have to agree. There's nothing physically wrong with it, and it performs as good as ever. However, the rubber grips came off the bottom due to excess heat being transferred through them, which is Dell's problem as the fans don't run in it until the CPU temp gets past like 50C so the entire metal case starts acting like a heat sink.
Problem two is that with the rubber grips gone (I've replaced them, but I've yet to find any of similar quality so I'll pick up my laptop and the damn things are adhered to the table because it's heated them so much the vinyl surface adheres to paint or varnish) the bottom of the laptop has started losing paint. The plastic shell is fine, sadly it also has metal casings to protect the ram slot, which is now incidentally a nice chrome.
There's also multiple other problems I've noticed through prolonged use of the Inspiron. Note these are nothing I'd dump a $3000 laptop over, however the next laptop I buy is going to be a macbook. The most annoying problem is if you don't close the lid properly, like you're just picking up your laptop to move it while still in use, it can turn off the screen but as it didn't fully close it won't turn on without a hard reboot. Another problem is that Dell doesn't supply up-to-date drivers; Intel released updated drivers for multiple things, including an overhaul of the built-in GPU making it compatible with more games and improving the shader emulations making the thing run a whole lot faster. In fact it improved it so much I stopped using my desktop for games as my laptop got better refresh rates. Sadly I had to uninstall the Intel drivers shipped through Dell and install the Intel ones manually. Obviously the few crash occourances Intel patched weren't important enough for Dell to bother testing and it still hasn't been released.
So even though I do love my Dell as it's served me extremely well. I would just prefer more quality for the price.
Problem two is that with the rubber grips gone (I've replaced them, but I've yet to find any of similar quality so I'll pick up my laptop and the damn things are adhered to the table because it's heated them so much the vinyl surface adheres to paint or varnish) the bottom of the laptop has started losing paint. The plastic shell is fine, sadly it also has metal casings to protect the ram slot, which is now incidentally a nice chrome.
There's also multiple other problems I've noticed through prolonged use of the Inspiron. Note these are nothing I'd dump a $3000 laptop over, however the next laptop I buy is going to be a macbook. The most annoying problem is if you don't close the lid properly, like you're just picking up your laptop to move it while still in use, it can turn off the screen but as it didn't fully close it won't turn on without a hard reboot. Another problem is that Dell doesn't supply up-to-date drivers; Intel released updated drivers for multiple things, including an overhaul of the built-in GPU making it compatible with more games and improving the shader emulations making the thing run a whole lot faster. In fact it improved it so much I stopped using my desktop for games as my laptop got better refresh rates. Sadly I had to uninstall the Intel drivers shipped through Dell and install the Intel ones manually. Obviously the few crash occourances Intel patched weren't important enough for Dell to bother testing and it still hasn't been released.
So even though I do love my Dell as it's served me extremely well. I would just prefer more quality for the price.
The high end thinkpads are the standard for quality.
I've used Thinkpads before and I always feel slightly dirty doing so. They're powerful, but they're ugly and they feel wrong when I'm using them. There's a disconnect in particular between the hardware and the software.
I'm using a MacBook Pro right now and everything about it feels perfect. Multitouch in particular: it's the only feature on a laptop where I now feel bad using desktop computers because now they feel less smooth.
So I'll go out and disagree with you and say that Apple's the standard for quality, though (as always) I'd be interesting in seeing your counterpoints.
I'm using a MacBook Pro right now and everything about it feels perfect. Multitouch in particular: it's the only feature on a laptop where I now feel bad using desktop computers because now they feel less smooth.
So I'll go out and disagree with you and say that Apple's the standard for quality, though (as always) I'd be interesting in seeing your counterpoints.
I got two dells ... now ... falling apart.
What kind? Precision?
What kind? Precision?
I don't even bother going to the Apple Store unless I know I can get something fixed or exchanged right away, since it is invariably filled with giggling teenage girls that just want to ogle the shiny hardware.
Maybe it's the inner hipster in me, but I almost feel like I have to ditch this scene now that it's so popular :)