[macnews]

StarWarsEpisode7 said:

Yeah, you have to pay for anti-virus protection (despite the fact you can get some free) but what about the fact that Apple charges for Service Packs (usually under the name of a new cat)? $130 for a few new features? Hahaha Apple you are cute.

And Apple has a high rate of failures too. I experience the beach ball more than any Vista problems despite the fact my iMac has superior specs to my Dell.

Windows is the best ever.

Either you are being sarcastic or seriously under estimate other's ability to find your previous posts. If you are serious, wow, wake up. In all my years I've NEVER had ONE mac I've owned or been responsible for (300+ since I manage a lab of macs) had to be wiped. I have done this with all but ONE windows machine I owned (1 out of 4 PCs). I will put the disclaimer that I have not had a PC with Vista, only Windows XP sp3 or earlier.

[warlock7]

I guess that the fact that it is so superior is the reason that nobody wants it. :^0

[Steve_S]

StarWarsEpisode7 said:

Apple adds about 2 new features and charges you $130 for it. Seriously. Something like Expose (which isn't even necessary on Windows due to Windows superior taskbar) or Time Machine could've easily been added for free. $130? Yeah right, Apple.

The same tired argument but from windows zealots of a different name. On average the OS updates have roughly 300+ new features with roughly a dozen or so major user level new features. No Windows service pack has ever offered anything close in magnitude (bug fixes don't count as features btw). Likewise, your comment is ridiculous. Windows doesn't have an equivalent to Expose, nor is the taskbar better. Besides bug fixes, what does Windows 7 bring over vista by way of features that should make us think Microsoft provides more value for their updates?

Quote

Vista is a new OS compared to XP, a superior OS at that.

Yeah, it's so superior, yet somehow the majority of Microsoft's user base has refused to migrate to Vista several years after Vista's introduction. Companies and individuals are still working at deals that will allow them to pay for Vista then "upgrade" back to XP. Go figure. ;-)

[mdawson]

Quote

Steve_S wrote:

>

Quote

Yeah, it's so superior, yet somehow the majority of Microsoft's user base has refused to migrate to Vista several years after Vista's introduction.

Yes, Vista is so superior that the PC press pretty much called it a hack job of OS X... Tiger. The release of Leopard put Vista that much further behind the curve.

Quote

Steve_S wrote:

>

Quote

Companies and individuals are still working at deals that will allow them to pay for Vista then "upgrade" back to XP.

An XP ?downgrade? seems to be a standard BTO option at Dell.com. People are not generally clamoring to downgrade OS X once they go to a new version. The Mac press also is not in the habit, nor do they have a need, to consistently tell Mac users to not upgrade to the latest Mac OS release as the PC press often does with Windows.

[philoking]

Let's talk about hidden costs a second...

Apple gives you hardware that supports 801.11n, but charges you $1.99 to enable it.

Apple charges you $1.99 to turn a song you already bought into a ringtone. (yes I know record co's are partly responsible)

Apple implements techology that is not pervasive so they can charge you for adapters to connect to standard gear (display port, firewire 800)

Apple regularly drops their more inexpensive products to force the customer to pay more (20" monitors, eMac)

Do you really want to argue that Apple doesn't nickel and dime it's customers? Really? Embedding a chip into headphones so manufactures have to license the right to make headphones? Really?

Microsoft on the other hand has consistently updated the quality and capability of the Zune player and the updates work on the old devices. In the Time that Windows XP was in market, Microsoft kept it updated while Apple charged you a net of $645 for OSX in Windows XP's lifetime.

Now let's talk about working out of the box:

Windows Live Gallery is a competent photo management tool, Windows Maker is an effective video editing tool, Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Calendar are just as effective at managing mail calendar and contacts as Mail.app and Calendar, Windows Live Writer is the best blogging tool on earth, Windows Messenger is compatible with a hell of a lot more users than iChat is, Windows Live Mesh and Windows Skydrive are more useful to me than the over priced and underwhelming .me service, and all of those are free. Through in Windows Live Care for antivirus and malware protection, including backup for less than half the price of one year of .Me and all of the sudden a Windows PC can do just as much (except garageband which is very cool, and iWeb which is a piece of junk, who makes static web pages anymore?) as a Mac. And I know Windows machines CAN be less stable, but it's all in the competency of the user and the decisions he or she makes maintaining a machine. Go to a genius bar and ask a cool guy how much trouble mac users get themselves into. It's probably not the same in quantity as windows users but similar in proportion.

[lwdesign]

philoking said:

Let's talk about hidden costs a second...


Apple gives you hardware that supports 801.11n, but charges you $1.99 to enable it.


Apple charges you $1.99 to turn a song you already bought into a ringtone. (yes I know record co's are partly responsible)


Apple implements techology that is not pervasive so they can charge you for adapters to connect to standard gear (display port, firewire 800)


Apple regularly drops their more inexpensive products to force the customer to pay more (20" monitors, eMac)


Do you really want to argue that Apple doesn't nickel and dime it's customers? Really? Embedding a chip into headphones so manufactures have to license the right to make headphones? Really?


Microsoft on the other hand has consistently updated the quality and capability of the Zune player and the updates work on the old devices. In the Time that Windows XP was in market, Microsoft kept it updated while Apple charged you a net of $645 for OSX in Windows XP's lifetime.


Now let's talk about working out of the box:


Windows Live Gallery is a competent photo management tool, Windows Maker is an effective video editing tool, Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Calendar are just as effective at managing mail calendar and contacts as Mail.app and Calendar, Windows Live Writer is the best blogging tool on earth, Windows Messenger is compatible with a hell of a lot more users than iChat is, Windows Live Mesh and Windows Skydrive are more useful to me than the over priced and underwhelming .me service, and all of those are free. Through in Windows Live Care for antivirus and malware protection, including backup for less than half the price of one year of .Me and all of the sudden a Windows PC can do just as much (except garageband which is very cool, and iWeb which is a piece of junk, who makes static web pages anymore?) as a Mac. And I know Windows machines CAN be less stable, but it's all in the competency of the user and the decisions he or she makes maintaining a machine. Go to a genius bar and ask a cool guy how much trouble mac users get themselves into. It's probably not the same in quantity as windows users but similar in proportion.

You've got to be kidding. I'm starting to think that Microsoft is purposely sending trolls into this and other forums to try to sow discontent and disorder into the ranks of the enemy. But, like their ads, their trolls continue to have their information twisted and skewed astoundingly into something far less than reality.

The $1.99 cost for 802.11n was only for a few older models (the iMac 2006 comes to mind) to make them compatible with "n" when it came out. The vast majority of Macs, and all Macs since about 2007, do "n" natively--and besides, get serious: you're complaining about 2 bucks?!!! How cheap are you?

Same goes with the $1.99 for a ringtone. How many of these would you have to create to make even a small dent in your budget? This is grasping at straws! Even with 10 ringtones and the cost for 802.11n (if needed at all) it would bring the cost up by $21.99.

The headphones for the new Shuffle I agree with as a dumb idea, but the answer is simple: don't buy a new Shuffle. There are plenty of the older Shuffles still available, or you can spring for a nano, or just use the headphones Apple sells. This is NOT a problem.

Just because XP moved NOT AN INCH technologically for YEARS is not a good thing. Apple has been continually updating and improving the OS X interface, adding new features and new functionality until it's a thing of beauty and elegance. But, you weren't forced to buy these improvements, just like Windows users who haven't upgraded to Vista in droves. I know people who are still using OS X 10.2 or 10.3 just fine.

Gosh, it's true that many Windows users DO think price is everything. They can't or purposely won't see that Mac users really do get value and enjoyment out of their OS. Instead they feel the need to point out how stupid and blind we are. We're not buying it son.

[richcon]

philoking said:

Apple charges you $1.99 to turn a song you already bought into a ringtone. (yes I know record co's are partly responsible)

Or if your song is DRM-free (as they all are now) you can do it for free with GarageBand, which comes bundled for free with Macs. If your song does have DRM, Apple made a free backdoor using iMovie to convert it to an AIFF, which also comes for free with Macs.

Quote

Apple implements techology that is not pervasive so they can charge you for adapters to connect to standard gear (display port, firewire 800)

You forgot Firewire 400, which at one point was introduced by Apple and wasn't pervasive either. It is now. You also forgot USB, which, though it was invented by Intel, it hadn't found any success in the PC market until Apple suddenly standardized on it for all Macs.

You can buy adapters from third parties, you don't have to get them from Apple.

Quote

Apple regularly drops their more inexpensive products to force the customer to pay more (20" monitors, eMac)

I have a 20" widescreen monitor running on my mac right now. It cost me $200 at Costco.

Quote

Do you really want to argue that Apple doesn't nickel and dime it's customers? Really? Embedding a chip into headphones so manufactures have to license the right to make headphones? Really?

Which turned out to be much ado about nothing once the rumors were clarified. Putting the controls on headphones does involve some extra hardware, of course. I have a non-Shuffle iPod (no custom controls) which I use with Philips headphones all the time.

[philoking]

hehe, those damned Windows users. I have a 2.8Ghz Dual Quad Mac Pro, a 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro and a 24" 2.13Ghz iMac. I love macs, I just don't understand why ever Mac users goes "Mac is so awesome because Windows is so bad." I use Windows all day for work, it's stable, reliable and works exactly how I would expect.

Sure I don't CARE about $2.00, the point is how tacky is it to charge someone to enable a feature that the hardware supports, almost as lame as it was to charge me $20 for a software update to my iPod Touch. Almost as lame is was as requiring me to go to the Apple Store to let them install an Airport Card in my Mac Pro (they wouldn't sell it to me, I had to carry that 80lb monster 2 freakin MILES)

My point is yes, OS X is beautiful, iLife is GREAT software. But Windows isn't as bad as Mac Fanboys would have you believe, and iLife is not the only game in town for free personal software, sure it's good, but the new Live stuff is great too, and it's free. I paid $5,000 for my Mac Pro after all was said and done, $2500 for my iMac and $2000 for my Macbook Pro. I don't mind paying for quality stuff. At the same time, when my Dad wants a new computer, I understand he has a budget that doesn't allow him to just go buy whatever. For the Price of a Mac Mini alone he got a quad core intel, 8GB ram, 1GB Gt120 video card, TV Tuner, 640GB HD, etc. The thing that Mac people and Linux people for that matter have to understand is a lot less people "mind" Windows as you seem to think.

On one last note, I actually work for Microsoft. If you had any clue how much of a legal struggle we face to innovate you might understand. One day soon, Apple will face the same difficulties we face. With the US Antitrust regulations and the EU regulations, we spend literally 1/4 of the year documenting what we create to keep from getting sued. If we don't meet certain bars in accessibility and backwards compatibility we get sued. It's not apples to apples (forgive the pun) I think that Windows Media Center, Xbox, Zune and Windows 7 are great examples of progress. We don't get the luxury of going "ok folks, OS X is out now, if you use OS 9 go to hell." It's just the way things are, Apple does things all the time we would get our butts sued off for.

[ChrisLJ]

"Apple regularly drops their more inexpensive products to force the customer to pay more (20" monitors, eMac)"

Apple's monitors have never been inexpensive. Far from it. They weren't competitive with the other brands in that size and it's no great loss. As for the eMac, you don't seriously suggest that they should continue to make those things, do you? I have one, and they served their purpose at the time. But CRTs are not welcome in the new 'green' environment. Time to move on. Even your average PC made the cutting edge change from beige to black. Who says those guys aren't innovative.

[philoking]

So charging for them is OK if there is a workaround to get them free anyway? To me that makes it even MORE pointless. Basically they will only charge the people that are ignorant of the hack.

Dropping Firewire 400 was just dumb....

I would be willing to bet your are onto something with the 20" they quit making it because they were so overpriced nobody was buying them. They would rather quit altogether than give up the ridiculous profit margins.

I was talking about the new shuffle....

[philoking]

I am not saying still make a CRT machine, lol. I am saying keep a model that's affordable to students or anyone with a limited income. $1199 is the cheapest machine they make (no the Mini does not count, it's $700 and a door stop out of the box)

Is Apple saying OS X is the best operating system and only people who can afford it should be able to use it?

I actually suggested this:



http://www.philoking...rn-from-toyota/



JB

[ChrisLJ]

I'll say one thing, you have one heck of a sense of humor. I gotta admit though, the idea of Apple and Psystar developing a partnership is hilarious. Can you imagine the uproar that would cause? I wonder what Ballmer would think.

It wouldn't surprise me if someday Apple does license their OS to other makers. I think they will do whatever seems like the best money maker for them. I think they would drop computers altogether if they develop more lucrative products.

[richcon]

philoking said:

>

Quote

Dropping Firewire 400 was just dumb....

Was dropping USB 1.1 dumb in all those computers that moved to USB 2.0?

I do agree that changing the connector shape is very inconvenient, and if they had managed to keep the same 6-pin cable FireWire 800 would be everywhere today. They also probably knew that, and there were actual technical reasons for the move to 8 pins.

If anything, I think Apple should have made the jump to 800 for all their computers long ago, but they held back because of that inconvenience.

[People_Eater]

richcon said:

>

Quote

Macs are not descent from that computer, so Macs are not "PC"s.

Neither are modern Windows PCs, so by your logic PCs are not PCs.