[Biallystock]

Grapho said:

Wow, so I would assume you think the 24" iMac laking in the resolution department?

No but the argument was that you should buy a 2nd non-glossy monitor to replace the problem with the glossy inbuilt one.

That at minimum means a 23" monitor for a 24" iMac. If you have a 20" iMac you can't run that and have to settle for the smallest Apple Display.

You can't upgrade to a 30" Apple display for either model.

[Biallystock]

Vulpine can you please provide a link to that Gartner Mac report.

The only recent reference I can find is to iPhone sales and the last Mac report is for Q1 where Apple's American market share actually fell back slightly to 5% from 5.1%

[vulpine]

Biallystock said:

A second pallette monitor is a good idea. Something I enjoyed for many years before various Mac models made that impossible or the expense jumped to the point where it just wasn't worth it.

Check your facts. I got it straight from one of Apple's specialists. The new iMacs will not drive a monitor higher than their own resolution. Also those complaining of being unable to color manage their 2nd (or even 1st monitors) are using Spyders. It doesn't help if the display can not be dimmed far enough, or is lit unevenly or it just plain doesn't do the job.

I know the USA is the world to those who live there but in the rest of the world Apple is not faring so well. Also the figures you quote are both inaccurate and even if taken at face value will not result in Apple overtaking "Windows" in a few short years. That would require a growth rate in multiples every quarter just to get off its low penetration rate.

When you have a low percentage of the market, gaining 1 percentage or 2 is spectacular growth on your own market but not on the whole market. They'd have to grow 1400 to 1500% to get to the Windows share and that is assuming that the sale of regular PCs stands still.

It is simple maths. 30% growth on Macs share is only 2% of the total market (which I don't think Gardner's figures bear up) where as 15% growth of the PC market is still 13.5% of the total market. Show me how that will lead to Apple closing the gap when the PCs growth alone is double what Apple sells in total.

Ok, I won't argue the first point here since it doesn't impact me.

The second point about my figures inaccurate, though, is false, unless Gartner is wrong. This article:

http://www.eweek.com...low-US-Economy/

clearly states that Apple shipped 1.3million Macs to Dell's 5 million. That's 25% of Dells' sales. It also clearly states that Apple's growth in computer sales rose by more than 30% vs the overall market growth of just over 15%, which means Apple's growth is double that of the overall market, which logically means that other PC sales must have been less than 5% growth over same period last year.

You might also like to know that a European newspaper conglomerate has announced that they are migrating their entire desktop environment over to Apple computers, a total of 15,000 machines; making them Apple's second-largest corporate client. The largest client is one you use yourself, I'm sure; and it's not Apple. Google is the largest corporate client for Apple, which proves that Apple not only can, but does work well in the corporate environment.

[zarmanto]

Biallystock said:

Vulpine can you please provide a link to that Gartner Mac report.

The only recent reference I can find is to iPhone sales and the last Mac report is for Q1 where Apple's American market share actually fell back slightly to 5% from 5.1%

I don't think that you can see the original Gartner report without subscribing to their website -- but dozens of news outlets have mentioned this particular report today, including Macworld.

[Eav10xb]

Why compete against your own software, there is no need. Psystar should make their own software. Then Apple can compete.

[vulpine]

[quote name='zarmanto']
>

Biallystock said:

Vulpine can you please provide a link to that Gartner Mac report.
>
>

Actually, the link to eWeek is right in my previous post, though the text of the link is very pale. It is entitled, "PC Shipments Increase Despite Slow U.S. Economy."

eWeek, by the way, is an Electronics Industry newspaper, not limited to computers.

[Biallystock]

vulpine said:

http://www.eweek.com...low-US-Economy/

clearly states that Apple shipped 1.3million Macs to Dell's 5 million. That's 25% of Dells' sales. It also clearly states that Apple's growth in computer sales rose by more than 30% vs the overall market growth of just over 15%, which means Apple's growth is double that of the overall market, which logically means that other PC sales must have been less than 5% growth over same period last year.

I am trying to follow your logic. How did you get "PC sales must have been less than 5% growth over same period last year" when Gartner clearly says "The IDC survey found that PC shipments increased 15.3 percent over the second quarter of 2007 for a total of 70.6 million PCs".

Of these Apple ?"shipped about 1.3 million Macs during the quarter". Which was only 10% of the "more than 13 million" Hewlett Packard alone shipped.

Also note that this year the Asia Pacific market (excluding Japan) has now outgrown the US market to be the worlds largest. Apple is not doing so well outside the States, but that is where the growth is really happening.

Quote

You might also like to know that a European newspaper conglomerate has announced that they are migrating their entire desktop environment over to Apple computers, a total of 15,000 machines; making them Apple's second-largest corporate client. The largest client is one you use yourself, I'm sure; and it's not Apple. Google is the largest corporate client for Apple, which proves that Apple not only can, but does work well in the corporate environment.

Yes I am aware of that and it is good news. Be aware these are isolated case and do not really break the stranglehold Windows has on the corporate world.

Good to see though Apple is getting back some of the publishing market it lost over the last 10 years.

[Gatesbasher]

vulpine said:

I, for one, am very happy with the Apple's glossy display. And if you weren't so dead-set opposed to anything Apple, you might actually discover it can do the job better than you believe.

Since this troll refuses to answer my question as to why, given his violent detestation of Apple and all their works, he continues posting venom to an Apple-oriented website, I don't think you're going to convince him of anything. However, I am so damn tired of hearing this "glossy screen" complaint that I just have to say, amen to your comment. The difference is, graphics work used to be done on $10,000 monitors, running off $10,000 computers, in darkened rooms. Now people bitch because if they try to do it on $1200 all-in-one computers on the deck of their beach house, they get reflections on the screen. (Have much luck watching TV out there, either?) Of course, "color accuracy" is a myth anyway: looking at an image on a monitor produced using the additive primaries (RGB) is going to give you only a very rough idea of what it will look like printed out in the subtractive primaries (CMY.) The proof, as always, is in the pudding. My only objection is to the persistent fantasy that you can get a better idea of what an image looks like, colorwise or any other way, by viewing it through an obscuring, half opaque coating. If you think you can, then please feel free to rub Vaseline on your display, but don't try to tell us that the absence of an obscuring layer makes the display "less accurate!"

[Swift2]

Try this:
news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9993160-16.html
... one vendor continues to make huge strides regardless of the geography: Apple. As CNET News' Ina Fried reports, Apple's Mac sales grew 38 percent in Q2 2008, and that's just in the U.S. Ironically, while Windows' growth has slowed to a 4.2 percent crawl in the U.S., globally it is up 16 percent, while Apple only managed 3.2 percent growth outside of the U.S.

And of course, those Windows machines, or a large percentage of them, have pirated copies of Windows, despite the consumer-unfriendly authentication nightmares.

Should the Mac make a cheaper desktop model? That's debatable. But it's Apple's decision, whether they make it themselves or rely on commercial partners to do so, and only sell them in countries where cheapness is the most important factor.

The discussion here is, does Psystar have the right to do what it's done? And the answer is undoubtedly no.

[Biallystock]

The plain fact was that the white 24" iMac's matte screen was an excellent color workstation, but Apple put a stop to that. Far from the absence of an obscuring layer, Apple actually added a highly reflective sheet of tinted glass over the existing screen and then beefed up the backlighting to compensate.

You obviously don't know what does make a good color monitor, but it doesn't stop you guessing.

As for the rest. I have probably used far more Macs for far longer than you, but you think because I don't brown nose Apple that makes me a "troll"!

You truly are simple minded.

[vulpine]

[quote name='Biallystock']
>

vulpine said:

> http://www.eweek.com...low-US-Economy/
>
> clearly states that Apple shipped 1.3million Macs to Dell's 5 million. That's 25% of Dells' sales. It also clearly states that Apple's growth in computer sales rose by more than 30% vs the overall market growth of just over 15%, which means Apple's growth is double that of the overall market, which logically means that other PC sales must have been less than 5% growth over same period last year.

I am trying to follow your logic. How did you get "PC sales must have been less than 5% growth over same period last year" when Gartner clearly says "The IDC survey found that PC shipments increased 15.3 percent over the second quarter of 2007 for a total of 70.6 million PCs".

Of these Apple ?"shipped about 1.3 million Macs during the quarter". Which was only 10% of the "more than 13 million" Hewlett Packard alone shipped.

Also note that this year the Asia Pacific market (excluding Japan) has now outgrown the US market to be the worlds largest. Apple is not doing so well outside the States, but that is where the growth is really happening.

Hmmm Ok, try to follow this. By the article, overall PC growth was only about 15%, right?
Apple's growth was around 30%, right? This means growth by the others MUST be less than Apple's growth.

Let's continue. Here you made an error. "Apple ?"shipped about 1.3 million Macs during the quarter". Which was only 10% of the "more than 13 million" Hewlett Packard alone shipped." An article today by PC Mag quotes IDC as saying, "HP finished second in U.S. sales, with a 25.3 percent share according to Gartner, and a 25.1 percent share according to IDC; the firm sold 4.17 million and 4.26 million PCs, according to the respective firms. HP's year-over-year growth was sluggish, about 5.6 to 5.9 percent." That figure is far, far lower than the 13 million you quoted, and raises Apple's sales to over 30% those of HP. That 13 million even is an invalid number, measured low. "According to Gartner, total U.S. PC shipments increased 4 percent to 16.4 million units." That figure, by the way, includes Apple's sales.

Here's the PCMag posting: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325860,00.asp

[Grapho]

Biallystock: you are rationalizing to be able to argue. Think about your latest proposition. Who in their right mind would spend more money on the monitor then on the CPU? Please, keep it real. The 30" Cinema Display's market is not the Mac Mini, nor the iMac, nor the MacBook, and barely the MacBook Pro. This display is for the MacPro crowd and comparable specked PCs.

Next you will argue that if your Superman or if you come from planet Kripton, you run the risk of burning your self with your X-Ray vision on a glossy screen iMac because of it's reflective properties.

[vulpine]

Biallystock said:

The plain fact was that the white 24" iMac's matte screen was an excellent color workstation, but Apple put a stop to that. Far from the absence of an obscuring layer, Apple actually added a highly reflective sheet of tinted glass over the existing screen and then beefed up the backlighting to compensate.

You obviously don't know what does make a good color monitor, but it doesn't stop you guessing.

As for the rest. I have probably used far more Macs for far longer than you, but you think because I don't brown nose Apple that makes me a "troll"!

You truly are simple minded.

Have you actually taken an iMac's glass screen off the computer? Well, neither have I, but I have watched an Apple Genius do exactly that... and guess what, there's no diffusion layer on the display itself. It's brighter because it doesn't have to push through what is, in effect, a neutral-density diffusion filter that softens and dims the display.
And honestly, I highly doubt you've been using Apples longer than I have. Of course, you're welcome to challenge me on that.

[Gatesbasher]

Biallystock said:

The plain fact was that the white 24" iMac's matte screen was an excellent color workstation, but Apple put a stop to that. Far from the absence of an obscuring layer, Apple actually added a highly reflective sheet of tinted glass over the existing screen and then beefed up the backlighting to compensate.

You obviously don't know what does make a good color monitor, but it doesn't stop you guessing.

As for the rest. I have probably used far more Macs for far longer than you, but you think because I don't brown nose Apple that makes me a "troll"!

You truly are simple minded.

And in a world of imbeciles, you do manage to make yourself stand out. Apple does many things I don't like, starting with their diskless, crappy-highly-compressed-download-only vision of the future of video, pandering to people's tin ears by selling billions of tracks of 128,000 bps icepick-in-the-ears "music," etc., etc. However, I suggest to you Plato's Parable of the Cave. These people who are so used to viewing images through obscuring coatings find the clear view of an unobscured monitor so dazzling that they scream in terror and close their eyes. Yes, I do know what makes a good color monitor! Thanks for the insult! I know if you agreed with me on anything, I'd be in deep trouble. You still won't answer: why do you use Macs when you hate them so much? And if you want to use Macs, why do you want to kill the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg? by robbing them of their OS to install on beige crapboxes?