"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
The term "IBM compatible PC" is outdated, as IBM no longer sets the direction (at least as much as it once did) of Wintel PCs. I would use Intel-based PC, Windows PC, or Wintel PC. Just a nitpick.

Mac/PC can do anything Mac/PC can do
A PC can do anything a Mac can. And a Mac can do anything a PC can. The Mac can do them better. A PC can do them cheaper. Unforunately, most people dont care about better.

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
It's a good nitpick. Intel-based PC would probably be better to use. Wintel or Windows PC would discriminate against PC's that run Linux, BSD, MS-DOS, or other OS.

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
I would still call it a "Windows PC" since it is what they are comparing here to a Mac and not a Linux based PC. And since many Windows PC's are using AMD processors and not Intel's... then the Wintel or Intel-based PC doesn't sound that appealing either.

Anyway, I am a multi-platform user since 1983. Had the original IBM PC and an Apple IIe. Nowadays I have several Macs and several PCs at different speeds. I am always a LOT less frustrated with a Mac. I can get some work done with the PC but I spend too much time trying to tweak or fix things on it. The Mac is always pretty solid. OS X has made it now rock solid for sure. Viruses and spyware has kept me avoiding using the PCs for internet or email for the most part. I never have to worry about those problems on my Macs and can get my work done much faster because of it. Most of my MacsI can still do real work with after 4 - 5 years. Any of my PCs that is older than 3 years is barely usable.
Lot of home "young" users keep getting PCs for gaming... I just decided to get the three major consoles with some games and still had some money left when compared to the price of a "good" PC gaming machine. Sorry, but it is not worth the money an effort as a gaming machine.
Anyway, each has its pros and cons. I find the Mac way more productive and fun to use. It just changes your view on computers completely.

Mac/PC can do anything Mac/PC can do
"Unfortunately" some of us do. I'll go for better any day. It will produce much BETTER results too.

Mac/PC can do anything Mac/PC can do
A PC CANNOT do them cheaper. We just completed a study showing that each Mac in our company was $5000/year more productive than each PC.

thinking different?
These are valid points that aren't going to go away any time soon .. if ever.

But, Apple have been pretty canny about their strategies of late. Look at the Xserve, this was billed as a 'media server' but it has consistently proven to be a powerful server worthy of the attention of ISP's looking to reduce cost and maintenance.

Apple shrewdly undersold this little beastie, knowing only too well it would sell itself outside of it's designated market. How many corporate IT departments would have bought one just so they could 'kick the tyres' and have since gone on to buy more? With favourable reviews from the likes of eWeek: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1135090,00.asp who could blame them?

The range of Apple laptops are fast becoming a nerd / geek fashion item. The G5 _is_ everything "Joz" said it was: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/07/16.16.shtml

Should I mention the iPod and the anecdotal evidence of people buying iBooks and iMacs just so they can hook up their iPods? I just did.

Apple are selling in different ways. They are now approaching both tried and tested as well as brand new markets in angles and ways both acute and obtuse alike.

For me, Apple are thinking very differently...

Consumer vs. business market share
Actually, I believe Mac OS market share is up for consumers. But is declining for business users. Mac OS X does everything Windows can do in a better-looking, more elegant fashion. But in education and businesses where institutions, not individuals, are making the purchases, better-looking, more elegant and easier to use doesn't carry as much weight.

Take iApps for example. Can cause a consumer to switch, but a corporation isn't gonna care.

Best,
-jimbo

Apple has to keep their pace
People aren't switching in droves, as the article says. Once you start loosing ground the way Apple did, it is incredibly hard just to stop the trend, let alone reverse it.

I believed Apple has stopped the down trend. I also believe they are about to start an uptrend, although it will be somewhat slow at first. And more important, they have to keep the pace and do better and better all the time.

I think Apple is in the process of growing roots. From the people I know, I've seen everything described in the article.

I've taken friends and co-workers to the Apple store. They are always very impressed, and most have/had no idea Apple was so much better now a days. The majority are still not switching, but I can say that the fact that they were impressed, is a lot of progress.

Their reasons for not switching is usually a combination of price, and the fact that they feel very comfortable with Windows and PCs already.

Business is a different story. Wintel has a lock here. The current investment on wintel technology by the big companies is so big, that I don't see how Apple can make significant progress. Standarization is also something that hurts here.

The young people I know have embraced the Mac enthusiastically. They have no wintel attachments, and their parents probably pay for their computers :)

I also think that developers that like development and technology for the fun of it, are switching to the Mac.

So it may take a while, but if Apple keeps the pace, they will do very well once again.

Multifaceted Marketing Strategy
I think Steve Anglin misses the point. Apple's marketing strategy involves several initiatives which are intended to operate together. One who slices and dices them into their components and then evaluates and measures them in isolation of each other will get a distorted picture of Apple's prospects.

The switch campaign, the retail stores, the peripherals (like the iPod), the digital hub and iApps, the iTunes Music Service, the increased focus on developers (including overtures to the established Unix community), the push for laptops, the increasing focus on the enterprise and the XServe, the company's most aggressive pricing in history, etc -- all TOGETHER make up Apple's strategy. They are each an essential piece of the puzzle.

Now it's true that the economy has tanked and has been problematic for at least three years. Likewise the market share of Windows computers is nigh over 90 percent (on the desktop). But these conditions were present from the outset -- so what should Apple have done -- dissolve?

In respect to the switch campaign specifically, Apple needs to be aggressive in its marketing; it can no longer rely on vague "concept" advertising but rather must attack its competitors head on. Thus the switch campaign. Thus the new G5 ads which advance the claim of the world's fastest personal computer. Will the overwhelming majority of existing Windows users stand pat? Yes, of course. We know that going in -- do we not? But this does not argue against the strategy, or if it did, then Apple might as well liquidate and be done with it.

I don't see the economy and the market share of Windows computers as elements of Apple's marketing in any event. Rather they are conditions to it; they are part of the landscape. So it's in THAT light that Apple's marketing should be evaluated. For example, how do we measure the success of someone who runs a foot race in the rain on a muddy track? Do we compare the athlete's time against those which occur under ideal conditions, or do we not measure the performance against the given circumstances?

For my part, I shudder to think where Apple would be if it had not taken all the initiatives I outline above -- including the switch campaign. And the issue isn't the percentage of the Windows installed base which has switched to a Mac. Rather the issue is that -- of those Windows users who DID buy a new computer -- what percentage of THEM bought a Mac instead of a new Windows box? THAT is the issue -- if we must look at this campaign in isolation of the other marketing initiatives.

Now even by this measure, I have no doubt the number is very small -- BUT, how many would have switched without the campaign Apple waged? It takes time to prepare the soil and sow the seeds for a significant gain of market share. I think it quite plausible that even with the switch campaign long since over, the friends and family of the switcher pioneers will now -- as the economy turns around -- be more disposed to consider a Mac and these ripple effects may well be greater than the initial gains themselves. For this reason it is premature to perform a post mortem ROI on the switch campaign. (We can also be sure that this campaign influenced the purchase of Macs among first-time computer buyers.)

Clearly Apple seeks to shore up its niche market strengths and to expand into new markets -- both at the consumer and corporate level. This includes the graphics and prepress industries as well as education and scientific. What else would you have them do?

Mac isn't going the right way
PCs in my opinion are better, I can list a lot of reasons why but there is one thing I can agree, it is somewhat harder to fix and it isn't as user friendly as MAC... But nevertheless PC are better, and don't say Windows is the only SYS OP, I know about 35 people off hand who perfer Linux. Mac is only superior in making grahpics, THEY DO NOT MAKE GOOD SERVERS, WIN SERVER 2K3 IS BETTER... TELL WHY IT ISN'T... AND GOOD REASONs, Mac is losing money because it is trying to tap in to markets that they souldn't get in to, trying to get to people that personally grew up around DOS, QDOS, windows, etc., people are happy with PCs because they can use them right, and since complete networks are based upon PCs and most people grew up around PCs and/or used them for years they aren't going to change because of costs, Apple should stick with that 5-7% market they got. Now I grew up with the PC (maybe that why I like PCs more >:) ),but I can also use and fix Macs. Macs have a flaw, only MAC one OP and people who used Macs for year know thats OSX is F-ed up (sry the only way I can put it) and it makes as much sense as the lost of SFC...(You Old Schoolin PC users know what Im talking about) Now to all u mac users out there, PC are cheaper but they take more effort and more time to control and master. Thats why some people perfer Macs but when u get outside that shell, u should all relized PCs have more compiable hardware but thats where it is flawed yet Super POWERED! You should all know why... Macs are harder to upgrade. So if ur a complete dumbbell or u just want to get something easy to master, go Mac, but if u want more compliablably and more software, cheaply, go PC, thats why Dell is kickin Apple's butt in this, and so in a market that say I want this, this , this and uhh this, market. Apple can't do everything a PC can, but thanks to many things being created on PC, a PC can almost do everything a Mac can, but it require some intellegence and time. So before O' reilly bans this account, I know how much time they spend supporting MAC. I will always go Dell , and NEVER GO G5! Unless for some reason I will need it to save world.

Mac isn't going the right way
PCs in my opinion are better, I can list a lot of reasons why but there is one thing I can agree, it is somewhat harder to fix and it isn't as user friendly as MAC... But nevertheless PC are better, and don't say Windows is the only SYS OP, I know about 35 people off hand who perfer Linux. Mac is only superior in making grahpics, THEY DO NOT MAKE GOOD SERVERS, WIN SERVER 2K3 IS BETTER... TELL WHY IT ISN'T... AND GOOD REASONs, Mac is losing money because it is trying to tap in to markets that they souldn't get in to, trying to get to people that personally grew up around DOS, QDOS, windows, etc., people are happy with PCs because they can use them right, and since complete networks are based upon PCs and most people grew up around PCs and/or used them for years they aren't going to change because of costs, Apple should stick with that 5-7% market they got. Now I grew up with the PC (maybe that why I like PCs more >:) ),but I can also use and fix Macs. Macs have a flaw, only MAC one OP and people who used Macs for year know thats OSX is F-ed up (sry the only way I can put it) and it makes as much sense as the lost of SFC...(You Old Schoolin PC users know what Im talking about) Now to all u mac users out there, PC are cheaper but they take more effort and more time to control and master. Thats why some people perfer Macs but when u get outside that shell, u should all relized PCs have more compiable hardware but thats where it is flawed yet Super POWERED! You should all know why... Macs are harder to upgrade. So if ur a complete dumbbell or u just want to get something easy to master, go Mac, but if u want more compliablably and more software, cheaply, go PC, thats why Dell is kickin Apple's butt in this, and so in a market that say I want this, this , this and uhh this, market. Apple can't do everything a PC can, but thanks to many things being created on PC, a PC can almost do everything a Mac can, but it require some intellegence and time. So before O' reilly bans this account, I know how much time they spend supporting MAC. I will always go Dell , and NEVER GO G5! Unless for some reason I will need it to save world.

Quick Reply
Sry B It won't let...

Quick Reply
Your post is unworthy of refutation. (You might consider deleting the duplicate; one is quite sufficient.)

Quick Reply
whoops I press enter.. me was the last word, I press refresh that why its double

How many switchers equal success?
There ARE lots of reasons why the vast majority of PC users will not now, or ever, buy a Mac.

But that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't try to lure such users, via its Switcher ads or other means (e.g., PC user floor traffic at Apple stores).

Apple's current market share is around 2-3%. PC market share is what, 85-93%? If Apple could get get a percent or two of PC users to go Mac, it would boost total Mac market share by over 50%! So the payback for Apple from even a small percentage of converts is huge.

Bottom line is, Apple doesn't need a LOT of switchers for its campaign to be a winner. I suspect that the ad campaign would have been more effective had not a poor economy depressed tech sales, aleading to PC price cutting which Apple is not going to match. But if the economy does heat up, the bug will be in buyers' ears, and maybe Apple will profit from this.

PS: By Apple's own admission, lackluster sales of the Power Mac have been a big problem. But, with top apps going OS X only (Quark Xpress, Photoshop 8, ProTools), and the promise of high performance from the G5 machines, Power Mac sales might rebound. I suspect this is Apple's best chance to boost sales/market share in the short run (next 18 months).

How many switchers equal success?
you're wrong about the market share, but the misconception is common ;) the installed mac user base is about 10% of the pc market. apple typically has between 2-4% of the quarterly *sales* of pc's, and it is this statistic that is frequently reported for various reasons. the simplest reason for this is that mac users retain their kit's longer than their pc counterparts.

IDG, Gartner, and the myriad other PC industry analysts provide the numbers cited above quarter after quarter, year after year.

the relevant issue is that the mac market is stabilized at about 10%. what should be reported is that this is sufficient for apple to remain viable, healthy (look at today's numbers in a crap economy!), and innovative: they aren't going anywhere...

How many switchers equal success?
I know what u mean but all the PC users I know would never ever ever touch a mac much less buy one but u do have a point... I remember back in Old Skool Mac was going to go out of buisiness in 2-4 years but thanks to the iMac, it lived... I think that it since it is going for graphic sales, it should look stylish... but make kind of mix with enviroment I like the G4-Cube... but didn't do to well, but if came out about the time of Gamecube, and kept it at reasonable price. It would have sold just because of the viewable market, don't ask me why the comsumer is like this but you know how society is... Bush is STILL support by the majority of the population... Mac needs to interact more with the market than those crappy little commerical about why Macs are better... just because of them, I know 3 mac users that went PC (seriously), So if Mac puts some style on their systems because if goes in the graphic area of the market make the system look nice too, and you'll get the sales to bounce up

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
I just always call the IBM breed "generic PC's".

best,
Neal

Critical flaw of reasoning in SJ article
The San Jose article's critical flaw is that the percentages of sales in a given month (or even year) cannot and do not express who those sales are to. By the very definition, a "switcher" would be a person who purchased a machine in the PAST, not compared with others buying machines today.

If EVERY sale of a Macintosh this year was to a prior Windows user, but *overall* sales of computers is up, the Mac will appear to have "lost" sales when in fact it may be moving aggressively into Windows territory.

These numbers do not represent the quality of a sale (is the computer sold to an end-user looking to buy software, or is it a drone running a POS application in a retail store), nor do they represent purposes. They also fail to take into account the disposable quality of an intel PC. I replace my intel based Windows computers at least yearly, usually every six months or so, and I know most of my contemporaries do as well. A Windows based intel machine that is a year old quickly becomes a relic. Macs seem to hold their value much longer, and remain *usable* much longer.

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
Well is not genernic PC... back in old skool, IBM finally perfected it own computer and name it Personal Computer, and that is why it is called IBM compaible PC but another reason why is because also Back in old Skool, IBM let anybody devolp on their system... but apple was stuck in the dark devolping everything themselves... Im not sure which one it is but it has to be one of them...
but IBM compatible PC is not technetically outdated because it related to all PC that have that style because what else u going to call it Wintel or Windows PC... like I said before Linux consumes about 5% of the consumer market and lots of the work enviroment, enough to not call it that and what else u going to call it 640K sys BIOS... not quite a catch

Critical flaw of reasoning in SJ article
No computer that are only a year old rule is not true anymore, I know people who had the same PC since mid-00 and they still play all up to date games, Enter the Matrix looks sick on it. But on Macs they hold their value longer but they take longer to update, and their isn't as much advance software there is for Mac therefore it lasts longer than PCs and if someone buys a Mac at a double price than a good PC then later u can swap HD when u get a new one... so PC have the better deal but Macs last longer in their value

GIGO
People who love PCs -- I mean really LOVE them -- tend to be input-oriented people. They love the process. They love lifting the hood and tweaking that engine to get a little more torque or RPM.

People who love Macs -- most Mac users, in fact -- are output people. The Mac is a helpful friend. The Mac allows them to out-put whatever it is they're creating.

I remember a discussion once with a PC guy who told me what wimps Mac people are because they don't KNOW their machines. They can't fix them, they can't customize them, they can't make them do things they weren't designed to do. Mac users are wimps, he said.

My reply was, if you have to hold the door onto the car as you drive, your arms are going to get really muscled. Still, wouldn't it be easier if someone invented hinges?

I don't know about you, but I use a computer to create non-computer-related things. The Mac gets out of my way; PCs get in my way.

That's it.

Mac vs PC
Steve,

It would be nice if everybody were using the same kind of computer, the same kind of car the same kind of… This is an old and ridiculous debate "Mac vs PC"?

You should hope for a new OS or/and a new hardware platform instead. That would stimulate our industry and would produce really innovative technology.

This kind of debate causes much comment but these comments are never positives and creatives. Don’t lose your time writing this kind of stupid thing.

Mac Mythology Dies Hard
What you say here stopped being true as of three years ago. The Mac OS is now a Unix variant -- on the BSD branch -- and there is no OS in the world more beloved by tweakers, hackers, and bit twiddlers than Unix. So in some respects the Mac has the best of both worlds -- a good GUI (though with room for improvement), and all the customizability that the Unix CLI shells afford.

Still, I agree with your main point which is that a computer is a tool people use to get a job done. The best computers are those which get that job done without getting in the user's way. Just as I want to be able to drive a car without having to be an auto mechanic, so do most people want to use computers without having to be a hacker or software engineer -- and rightly so.

Mac vs PC
what makes it so stupid?
serious he make a completely valid point

Critical flaw of reasoning in SJ article
I hope I am reading this wrong. I can't believe people still believe a Mac is not upgradable. Not only can you swap out the Hard Drive with the latest 250 GB WD or Maxtor off the "PC Dealers" shelf, you also don't have to fight BIOS limitations just to get the OS to recognize it. From tearing into a new box to copying files to a new drive averages me about 5-10 minutes (most of which is spent clearing adjacent debris away from the side of the computer!). I recently installed a CD-RW DVD Combo drive (ordered off a PC only shopping site for $69) into a 1999 BW G3 without skipping a beat and without installing any drivers! As for your "advanced software" I am sure any Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Lightwave or other high performance users would love to argue that point. Usually the reason those people have the latest hardware is because they were used to investing $50,000-$100,000 in hardware before they switched to Mac so a couple $1000 to get the latest and greatest is still a steal to them.

Mac isn't going the right way
I am so glad this person belongs to the PC camp. I would refute this post but I am not fluent in gobbledygook.

Mac isn't going the right way
>> THEY DO NOT MAKE GOOD SERVERS, WIN SERVER 2K3 IS BETTER... TELL WHY IT ISN'T... AND GOOD REASONs

Sure. i can list one reason: UNIX.
UNIX has been around for 30 years now and is the tried and true workhorse of the important parts of the business sector. No, and i do mean no, serious company besides Microsoft runs win2k3 server as their mission critical database, or webserver. And if they do, then they deserve to be put out of business for running such an unscalable, license ridden, insecure operating system.

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
Is this a rap music discussion? "Skool" is not a word. Obviously you do not have spell check integrated in the browser you use, or you have chosen not to use it (what a rebel).

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
Actually, considering that IBM has had a hand in the PowerPC chip since 1993, it would be fair to call all Apple PowerMacs an IBM compatible computer. Anyone remember CHRP and PReP?

Missing the Point
Steve can speak for himself obviously, but I don't think his intention was to spark a debate about which platform is more meritorious. If this is the lens through which you read his words, I think you are missing the point. Rather I think he meant only to highlight possible reasons which moderate against a user's switching platforms at this time -- regardless of which platform may be better.

Mac isn't going the right way
Obviously this person knows nothing about BSD, Apache, Samba, Gimp-Print, Cups, Apple Image Capture, etc.. I don't care what drivers are available for my computer, I want to plug in a Camera and have the OS say: "Hey, we noticed you plugged in a camera, would you like to download the pictures from it?" or "Hey we noticed you plugged in a new printer, we went ahead and installed the drivers and added it to your printer list."
The Internet itself and most corporate networks are running the TCP/IP protocol, which was developed and improved on UNIX based systems for almost 30 years. NeXT was the first platform that had well developed GUI based internet applications running on it. NeXTstep is now fully integrated into OSX. That is the true "Old SCHOOL"!

I switch but for non of the reasons that you mentioned.
I made the switch from the PC to the Mac, and you know what? I didn't do it for any of the reasons that were mentioned. I've been a long time user of Debian and Windows, and I still have two PC's one running Windows, the other running Linux. The reason I chose to Switch was simply because I love computers and was both curious and non biased. I'm so glad I took the risk! The two main reasons (especially for a novice user) that I love this thing is that Mac OS X is incredible. Out of the box It does everything a computer should do with out the need to search for additional software, to help improve the experience like Microsoft Plus, Music-Match, or drivers for this and that which was completely unnecessary with the Mac. And well you don't necessarily use Linux for the interface experience But let me tell you how long it takes to get Linux configured the way I like it. In essence It makes sense, it's clean and it really is the way an OS should be, nothing but an enjoyable experience. Secondly and more importantly, its a mainstream OS that supports open standards. On my network the Mac plays more fairly than any of the other computers. I NEVER have any problems transferring and opening a file created on the Mac to any other system, where as I have trouble with Windows files, especially when it comes from a Microsoft product like Office. Plus Apple's contribution to the open source community has been amazing. Contributions like zoreconf improvements, HTML parser SDK, and many others has incredible implications for the Mac and Linux community and even Windows if developers swallow some pride and use these open programs. I do think that the price seems a little steep, but I got to tell you that the experience more than compensates for it. One other Mac myth, there is more software available for Windows than Mac. This simply not true. Mac has both software from its BSD roots and its Mac apps plus the ones that I have used are more robust than on the PC especially when it comes to things like DVD authoring, and development of any kind. I can write and compile an application for Mac, Unix, Linux, and Windows all on my Mac! The real problem is to much misinformation, and uneducated harping on the Mac. and the Mac is truly an equal and definitely shines with the best OS of any platform to date. Any body that gives the Mac a one month test drive would never turn back!

Switchers I've known
I am a software developer, and so are most of the people I know. So my observations are from a narrow sample. I know 6 or 7 "switchers" in my extended circle. Only 1 switched from a Windows PC to a TiBook running OS X. All the others switched from Unix and Linux. OS X is Unix underneath and a set of consistent/integrated apps on top. For these users OS X (especially on a portable) is just a better Unix development environment. Programmers tend to upgrade equiptment more frequently than the general business or home public. When they upgrade, they tend to go for most powerful machine that satisfies their other needs. From that perspective, I expect to see a crop of dual G5s popping up.

The ironic part is...
... that this issue is even being debated at all. 3-4 years ago, no one was talking about Macs - it was like they no longer existed.

Now, I see market share debates everywhere. At the very least, it shows Macs are winning mindshare. They have regained a position as part of the 'computing/technology culture'. Think about it. The fact of the matter is that it will take a long time before you will see large gains among Mac users - point #2-3 are probably the most compelling reasons for the current situation. The market is saturated with PCs, and truth be told if Macs got an extra 1-2% of the market, that would be a significant gain considering the saturation of the market and the 'barrier to entry'.

#4 is true to a point, but I think this is actually part of point #3. That is to say, the improved interface and ease of use may allow the average user to get more out of their (video) camera, but the strain on the pocketbook is just too much. *Plus*, and even more importantly, most people don't know a friend who has a Mac.

And #5? Maybe *for some developers* PC is the preferred platform, but I'm a "switcher" who now owns two Macs and am very happy with them. And Panther will give me things like distributed compiling, and if you've ever had to build Mozilla, you'll know how exciting that is.... ;-)

Personally, I think PC vs. Mac is not the appropriate way to look at 'preferred' development platform. I think Unix/Linux vs. Windows is a better light to look at things in. I've moved from proprietary Windows tools to mostly open source *nix-based tools, and I've found Mac to be the best of both worlds. I think people are moving more to *nix/open source as Windows keeps getting hit with worms, viruses and other such things. (Quite honestly, after dealing with VB and trying to work around all the quirks that the various "COM" components had, I found that open source was very refreshing. I could find and fix any bugs that plagued my program!)

There will not be any more Microsoft-like success stories because the market has matured. But Mozilla, Macs, Linux, OpenOffice and other applications (wxWindows/wxPython - woohoo! =) are starting to break up the "Windows/Office" monopoly, they just aren't doing it the way people keep expecting to see - some massive exodus of users. Instead, they're doing it one user at a time. But I think that because of this, 3-4 years from now the computing world will be a very different place. Macs won't ever have a majority marketshare, but so long as they're making a profit and keep innovating, they'll keep making inroads just as Linux has into Microsoft-held markets, little by little. The train has left the station folks, enjoy the ride. ;-)

The ironic part is...
Excellent post, if I may say so. Many good points. Let me add only that for an increasing number of Java developers, the Mac (and OS X) is the platform of choice -- much preferred over Windows.

Open Standards - Open Source
I want to echo what you say regarding standards compliance and support by Apple with its Mac and OS X platform. So many people continue robotically to recite the long obsolete mythology that Windows is more "compatible." But compatible with what? Itself? Any company becomes de facto "compatible" when it gains over 90 percent market share.

There was a time long ago when the "not invented here" mentality did indeed prevail at Apple; but that time is long past, and now -- as you point out -- Apple embraces open standards and is a great champion of them. It supports Firewire (1394), Zeroconf, USB, PCI, Java and Javascript, and virtually all of the internet and web communication standards and protocols. In contrast, Microsoft seeks to undermine standards in favor of its own proprietary offerings.

You are right also to point out Apple's generous support of open source -- via Darwin and its Safari web browser (among other things). If this is a compelling issue to a prospective buyer of either platform -- namely compliance with open standards, then OS X is definitely the way to go (over Windows). In contrast, if you want to help defeat the platform-independence of the web, then Microsoft is the company for you.

How many switchers equal success?
I understand the point you're making, but I do believe you're mis-using terms, and perhaps, mis-stating facts.

When people say "% of market share", they mean "% of current sales." By that common definition, the mac has a 2-3% market share.

I do understand your point, that "% of sales" does not equal "% of installed base."

But what makes you say that macs have "10% of the installed base"? I read mac news on a daily basis, and i've never seen that number. If you have a link for this, i'd love to see it...

Also: mathematically, I don't see how this could be true. The number of macs sold by Apple the past three years has declined in absolute terms, and they are less and less a share of all pc's sold. This implies that the macs share of the installed base is declining... unless pc users are discarding their pc's after 6-12 months of use, which i doubt. (As an aside: I wonder if the pc sales figures include all the pc that are built from pc kits by the do-it-yourself crowd?...)

Bottom line, it appears to me that the mac's share of the installed base is shrinking, not stabilizing... but that's how it appears to me... I don't have any evidence of this one way or another...

Mac isn't going the right way
Dude, if you are going to babble some kind of perspective, here is some advice:

1) Use the language that the rest of the posters are using. I don't care what language you *think* you just used - it was mostly not English, and babelfish doesn't recognize it at all either. Pick a language that people on the planet Earth understand.

2) The pieces that were vaguely similar to English were very, very, very disjunct and badly organized. Take a high-school writing course again, and learn how to organize your thoughts and present them so that you come off as something other than a 17 year old who just got done huffing gas.

I don't mean to be harsh with this assessment, but, really, what do you expect with a posting like that? Regardless of your perspective (my guess is that you like PCs more than Macs, but it is hard to tell because I haven't spoken Betelgeusian in a while...), people won't listen to you or respect what you have to say if you can't say it in a manner that is intelligible. Proper language syntax and usage is not optional if you want to communicate with somebody or something like a compiler.

FYI...

Reason 3 is narrow-sighted
Last time I looked at the word in a dictionary, "proprietary" is used to describe something which is seperate unto itself, indicative of a closed system.

You'll excuse me, but isn't Windows the more proprietary of systems? I would think that with a Unix core, the Mac would be closer to Linux in your comparison.

It does seem that no braincells were killed to write this "report" - just rote mumblings of years' past...

The ironic part is...
And let me add, that for me as a Java developer, it isn't. Why? Because Java is still relying very much on processor power and my 2.8GHz PC just performs much better than my dual 1.4GHz Mac. And that's another point why many Windows users don't switch.

The ironic part is...

Well, that's a moot point after the G5 comes out swingin'.

Misplaced Java Support
Your point only argues in favor of Intel over PPC. It has nothing to do with Windows over OS X. I don't know any Java developer who thinks the commitment to Java by Microsoft is remotely equal to that of Apple. Quite the contrary, Microsoft -- having appropriated and adulterated Java as its own C# -- is doing everything it can to undermine the development platform.

Today the top three technology companies most behind Java are Sun, IBM, and Apple. If you wish to use Pentium or Itanium chips, more power to you, though I do think the G5 is most promising. But if you think Windows, under the stewardship of Microsoft, has a great future as a Java development platform, then we strongly disagree.

Market share, pah!
Market share stats are totally subjective.

Lets look at the CPU market for a moment - did you know that in the industry AS A WHOLE, intel has a 2% market share. Sure, if you are talking just PCs then their market share in enormous, but once you factor in the CPU in your VCR, your car, your phone, your optical mouse ... well, you get the idea.

I am a very recent Switcher. I agree with the input/output point above - I wanted my workflow of capturing/editing/producing DVDs to be uninterrupted by IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL bluescreens.

I also strongly agree with the point that no-one seems to know anyone else who owns a Mac. I work in IT so might've expected to be able to find a Mac owner but nope. My decision to buy a PowerBook was based on web reviews (I could not find anyone with a bad word to say!) and a play in PC World - my criteria was "if I can find the GUI dialog to change TCP/IP settings this baby is mine"

The rest is history. I've used windows, like, forever, I've had an affair with Linux and now my main PC is a Mac - yes, Macs are Personal Computers too!

OS X has all the benefits of Linux with slick multimedia all ready and waiting.

Unless something really bad happens to Apple, I expect my next PC will be a Mac, too.

IT Mentality
Actually, IT personnel are among the most UNLIKELY to be open to trying a Mac because they are raised in the corporate milieu in which Microsoft is the only acceptable religion. Even today, if the average IT person hears the word, Mac, they are inclined to pooh-pooh it as a serious platform -- never mind that it's a de facto Unix workstation and server.

So you are a very rare bird indeed -- and this is a good thing.

Misplaced Java Support
PPC is the only viable platform for OS X, and i386 the only viable platform for Windows. Thus the point is by extension valid for these operating systems.

Microsoft is not the main purveyor of Java VMs for Windows, and their strategy regarding Java vs. C#/.Net does not set the pace for the Java industry. There are several different non-MS Java VMs available for i386, and they seem to be better optimized than their PPC counterparts.

I've had the opportunity to run the same Java apps (MagicDraw, XMLMind's XXE, JBuilder) under OS X as well as Windows and Linux on comparable machines (a P3/600 and a G4/667). The Java VMs are probably comparable when it comes to raw speed, but the user interface is snappier in Windows than in Linux, and OS X is the worst of the bunch, verging on being unusable.

Because...
Because it's a Mac, baby.

De La Soul use 'em...

Critical flaw of reasoning in SJ article
To be frank, it still isn't as easily upgradable as a PC. Switching out the CPU is a pain. Motherboard upgrades are pretty much impossible, adding a new video card, if not manufacturer by Apple is a nightmare, if not impossible in most cases and if you try popping a non-Apple DVD writer in there, it simply won't work, because they are trying to protect their own product lines. So yes, you can add hard drives and memory, but that is it for most of the easiest upgrades.

I mean, for heaven's sake, if you need to replace the power supply (where I live, we get extreme temperatures summer and winter, leading to lots of dead PSUs/PSU fans), although it's an ATX power supply, you can't buy a new one, because Apple swapped some of the ATX connector lines, so a generic PC ATX PSU will kill the mobo. I'm sorry, but that is just being stubborn to the point of stupidity.

And with respect, your comments about hard drive install and CDRW install are the same under Windows and Linux. Just shove the drive in and boot it.

Reason 3 is narrow-sighted
Windows would be the more proprietory of systems, if Apple released stuff back to the community. As it is, they've only really released Safari hacks back, because the GPL forces them to.

I think most people examining that question from the free software world are currently unhappy with Apple, but would like to see Quicktime player released for alternative OSs, which would fix many things.

What we really want in total:
- Quicktime
- Rights to use Apple's font anti-aliasing techniques (may be moot, current Linux AA techniques are very good, not sure whether they are on a par yet)

Misplaced Java Support
You say, "PPC is the only viable platform for OS X, and i386 the only viable platform for Windows. Thus the point is by extension valid for these operating systems."

This is utterly false. Or are you under the impression no other operating system runs under the Pentium chip?

If the original poster had said he prefers to use a Linux-Intel platform for his Java development, I would have had a very different response. Intel does not automatically imply Windows. Hardware is hardware -- and operating systems are operating systems. Let's keep things straight.

Besides, if I could not have my cake and eat it too, and if the hardware of one platform was better while the OS of the other platform were better, I would err on the side of going with the better OS (for the language and development of my preference).

As for the speed of the Java VM under OS X, have you been using version 1.4.1? In any case, there are Java VMs under X11 which run on Darwin/OSX just as there is one which runs natively under the Aqua window manager.

Historically the Mac has been lukewarm at best in its Java support. But as a developer, I would cast my lot based on the prospects for the future. Right now I would focus on OS X and Linux for Java development. Apple is embracing Java with a vengeance and the G5 is very promising as a hardware development platform. Thus I would have a Windows box only for testing at this point. But that's just me.

4 wasn't a valid reason
4 wasn't valid, Macs come bundled with everything you need for digital photography and video and Adobe have always placed prime importance on the Mac.

How open is open?
Apple DOES release code back to the open source community. It has made code available to the Zeroconf organization, and as for Safari, you have the cause and effect reversed. Apple is not releasing code because the GPL forces it to do so; rather, Apple CHOSE to use an open source rendering engine rather than to develop one of its own. It has embraced open source; there is nothing grudging about it.

As for Quicktime, it's odd you find fault here because Apple supports the open standard of MPEG-4 while Microsoft supports only its own in-house proprietary streaming technology. Is that not enough for you?

It sounds as if you want Apple to release ALL its code as open source. That's not reasonable.

Reason 3 is narrow-sighted
whoa whoa whoa here.... apple's osx is based on mach and the freebsd code base. All of the base operating system is open source. ALL of it. And it is all licensed with either the GPL or APSL with a few instances of other open source licenses. This even includes their netinfo database code which has already been ported to linux and has nss modules available for glibc. Jeeze dude, even their objective c runtime is open source it's just unfortunate that it's so asm optimised it's difficult to port anywhere.

We're not getting jems like quicktime for free. But did you really expect them to give that away? all in all, apple are giving a LOT back to the community. They assigned copyright for their changes to the gcc compiler to the free software foundation. Expect most of their improvements to be in the official gcc 3.4 when it's done. Oh yeah, and lets not forget the code they've been giving back to the BSDs under the BSD license.

Disclaimer: I dont use a mac. But I dont like it when people dont give credit where it is due.

Misplaced Java Support
Windows in various forms will run on amd64/ia64/arm/alpha processors. OSX right now is restricted to PPC only due to culture, it's predecessor openstep even ran under windows and solaris as a runtime environment. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of rhapsody for intel which has apple logos everywhere and is quite amusing to run if not morbid is some sick manner.

Moving on...

The reason why OSX is such a good java platform is that they have managed to integrate it into the OS at such a seamless level. Java is no second class citizen, it has full access to everything just like an objective-c application. Even C++ cant say that as you need to use the hybrid objective-c++ in addition to c++ in order to access the cocoa apis. Apple is putting forth great effort to support java and make sure they have the best damn VM out there. OSX's dev tools support java beautifully and they come free with the OS. I must say, their IDE is freaking BEAUTIFUL.

Compare this to windows who for the longest time purposefully included a broken java vm to undermine the technology. It doesnt matter that another VM is available when the included one is broken and joe sixpack is pissed of at -your- -application- for sucking wind.

Partly true, but not quite
1) PC's are NOT the "preferred" platform for developers. Developer choose to develop for and on the platform of their clients, or whatever they view as their target market. It has little to do with "preferred". Windows is biggest, and that propagates itself.
2) The main reason for not switching is that for most humans, and it gets worse as you get older, is that it is harder to UNlearn something than to learn something. All thos who have learned to master Windows have trouble unlearning it and don't want to through away their hard-learned knowledge.

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
You know, I'm glad you mentioned that because it is a very funny situation. Because nowadays, all of IBM's chips are PPC. And IBM is the one who designed the G5 processor (the PPC970 chip to non-apple types) and supplies most of apple's chips I believe. IBM even joint developed altivec with motorolla.

Nowadays, IBM compatible is a term that should be used to describe macs and soon IBM's new linux workstation based on the PPC970.

Reason 3 is narrow-sighted
>As it is, they've only really released Safari hacks back, because the
>GPL forces them to.

This is so obviously wrong that I really have no idea if you're a Troll or just uninformed. A single Google search would have brought you this:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

Here's a short list of some stuff Apple has either given to the comunity or where Apple is contributing code:

- Darwin
- Streaming Server
- Compiler Tools
- Kerberos
- Open Directory
- OpenPlay
- Printing
- Rendezvous
- Security
- WebCore
- X11
- Berkeley DB
- Jboss
- and, uhm, Mac OS X's Chess.app ;-)

Yes, Linux users (me included) want QuickTime, but Apple doesn't have to actually opensource it. I'd be happy if they just released a version of QT for Linux.

LKM

Steve Jobs would disagree but...
Legions of switchers?? Who cares! I prefer Mac as an 'exclusive' platform of choice. A mass exodus to the Mac would surely dilute its elegance and Apple's ability to freely innovate.

small, nimble, groundbreaking - Mac baby!

Misplaced Java Support
Than the person programming is not that experienced, because I have used Think Free on OS X at it is very snappy and easy to use its GUI components. Windows can't even make use of enough memory to make Java usable. OS X can recognize 2 GB of RAM - I have 1 GB - but XP can only make use of 512 MB and my Toshiba laptop with ME didn't change in performance when I tripled the memory from 128 to 384 MB RAM.

Quicker Reply
there's a good reason why a Mac is better; it's harder to do such stupid mistakes on a Mac ;-)

IT Mentality
I totally DISAGREE. In recent times, I think IT people are getting more and more likely to switch. I am an IT guy (for 20 years), and I have also switched... why? I was freakin' fed up with Microsoft and the endless security updates... seems like nearly EVERY one of them will "Fixes a hole that would allow a hacker to run malicious code..." Can ANYONE count how many of these there have been? I lost count YEARS ago. I began searching for something better... looked at linux, but went with a Mac. I won't go back.

Partly true, but not quite
Let's look at it logically. Windows is developed for by more people on PCs more than any other platform. Period. Therefore, it is preferred. Your emotional twisting of reality does not change the truth.

Steve Jobs would disagree but...
Uh, yeah, but Apple is participating in the Capitalist framework, and therefore should be thinking outside of the self, unlike yourself ;)

4 wasn't a valid reason
Haven't Adobe cancelled recently one of their video editing software for the Mac? And IIRC they issued some time ago, a statement saying Photoshop ran better on Windows... This is not what I would call "prime importance"

Partly true, but not quite
Millions of people die every day-- most do not prefer to do this, it's just reality.

Missing the point of the Switcher adds
Wow, what a lot of posts.

I think you're right, but missing the point. Apple knows they're a niche player, and they're perfectly happy with that. Their strategy is to make sure current Mac users are satisfied with their computer and stay loyal, and to gradualy extend their market share and grow the niche.

The Switcher adds is directly targeted at these goals, they are _NOT_ actualy primarily intended to get windows users to switch (in my opinion). They are intended to make current Mac users feel very comfortable and cosy with their choice of computer.

Meanwhile the Mac community will actualy grow through gradual expansion of the sophisticated professional user, fashion and technology concious home user, and unix geek that wants a nic desktop niches.

Simon Hibbs

My take on the switcher ads
My take on the swither ads is they are not very good. I mean why would you want to associate with a girl that clearly don't know what she is doing on a computer. I get an image of "buy a mac - don't think!" instead of the old and good "Think differently". You have the latest ad for the G5 that you are blown away running the dock. Then you have guys running around with a big X. Great ad, just great *said with dripping sarcasm*

Mac on the desks of physicists
Straw poll of my department looks to be roughly 25% Mac - in high-energy/theory, where compatibility with linux analysis tools and good presentation and reliability are key, 50% or more have TiBooks.

RE: Mac isn't going the right way
On XP it did just that with my printer a Canon S400. I stuck the usb cord in it went an got the drivers, the right ones, and installed the printer just fine and added it to the print center.

Please get a new argument because this is old.

Why not switch...
How about PRICE? I'd love an imac, but I have a
kid, a mortgage, car payment[s], etc. and I just
can't rationalize $1800.

You forgot...
Pirated software. Most individiduals have a better chance of obtaining pirated software for PCs than they do Macs.

Comments like, 'THey don't have XXXX' with Microsoft Word being #1. Then you say, "Sure they do" and they go, "Uh..."

I'm not sure what type of software you develop but a majority of the people I know develop web-based or enterprise applications using Java, Perl, PHP, etc.

Re: You forgot...
Sorry, but this is not true. I don't approve of this but you have clients for OSX and you can even search in windows/linux for office x etc. This is not an issue. An iso is an iso. If you wan't to pirate software there will be a way, always.

Because...
De La Soul?

I thought you were arguing for switching to a mac? Those "has beens" couldn't sell their albums on a street corner with a $10.00 rebate and a coupon for a free Big Mac...

Why not switch...
Uh.... You can make the same argument about $1800 PCs. There are macs that list under $1000. True, they may not have the coolness of a 17 inch iMac, but they run the same processor, at similar speed, etc.

Why do people make so many assumptions without bothering to check them first?

4 wasn't a valid reason
Yeah, they cancelled Premiere because Final Cut Pro was clobbering it, and Final Cut Express was undercutting, thus, no one in their right mind was buying it.

As for Photoshop, that web page you are referring too is quite old and out of date (as it was when posted, actually). Adobe now says publically that the G5 is the way to go.

Macs just do this stuff better.

Misplaced Java Support
This is crap! Windows might not be an a prime example of a fantastic OS, but it is certainly capable of making use of more than 512MB of RAM. Get your facts straight.

Why not switch...
Hello? The most inexpensive Macintosh with OS X is $799. Now are there assemblers which can beat even THIS price on the Wintel side -- sure. Assemblers who don't have the cost of developing their own operating system -- sure. But Apple is definitely price competitive.

Besides, if price were your only criterion, you would reject Wintel in favor of buying a $299 Lindows computer from Walmart.

My take on the switcher ads
The switcher campaign was targeted chiefly at the consumer market. It wasn't meant for hackers or even power uses. This doesn't mean hackers can't be happy with a Mac -- on the contrary; they tend to love Unix boxes. But the point is that the switcher campaign was clearly directed at ordinary consumers, and this is the much larger market segment anyway. In fact, one of the switcher ads made this very point, that people don't want to spend time having to download Windows drivers in order to find the right one for a particular device. Instead they just want to plug things in and have it work straightaway.

Now you are right that this won't ring the bell of people who twiddle bits, but the message is obviously not directed at them in the first place.

Steve Jobs would disagree but...
No, the original poster in this thread never said Jobs didn't want to make a profit -- or even to significantly increase Apple's profits. But market dominance is something else altogether and this is not what rings his bell. Instead, after all these years, he is still excited by new technologies and THAT is his chief motivation -- to be seen as a visionary who introduces the world to cutting edge products.

Faulty Logic - Numbers Equals Preference
Your "logic" is absurd. By this measure people prefer Chevys to Mercedes.

But more to the point, you make no allowance for other motivations in the purchase of a product. Unless you think that the vast majority of PC users are the purchasing agents in their own corporations, you should consider that most people simply "inherit" a Wintel platform and their first exposure is based on this.

Or are you under the impression that most people do an honest and unbiased study of the merits of Wintel and Macintosh and then choose Wintel? Yeah, right.

RE: Mac isn't going the right way
Thank Canon for that, not Windows XP. They laid their own groundwork and got things in-box to make that work. Try that with another vendor's printers and you won't see that happen.

Partly true, but not quite
Not so at all. I develop enterprise applications in Java, not because I prefer it, but because that's where the jobs (that are left) are, and that's where the bulk of my experience is (a feedback loop). I'd prefer to be writing useful and creative applications for the Mac, but on the other hand, I also prefer to receive a reliable paycheck. It's reality, not a preference.

MacOSX and developers
I'm not sure if aretechnica is a site frequented by developers but there does appear to be a suprising strong showing for MacOSX in the OS poll

DrC

http://arstechnica.com/forum/sympoll/index.php?dispid=19&vo=19

IT Mentality
I appreciate what you say, but in my experience, you are an exception. Most IT people think Microsoft walks on water -- yes, despite its innumerable security patches and the like. The majority of IT people are Microsoft bigots and lackeys who think that VB is a great programming language superior even to Java.

And if this is not so, then why do corporations continue to buy and use Wintel? Who is responsible for this if not the IT people? You don't think it's the accounting departments that make technology recommendations, do you?

You forgot...
Yeah, the ease with which you can generally obtain and use MS Windows software for free is the #1 thing I hear from people who are stuck on MS Windows. It turns out that they have a Dell and MS Windows and everything else came from some guy they knew at work or somewhere. So they are cool on getting a Mac, cool on using Mac OS X; but they're not cool on having to actually pay for MS Office for Mac or Photoshop for Mac or whatever.

However, these guys have even more computer problems than your average user (no disks for reinstalls, no docs, etc) so I think it is still worthwhile for them to switch, and to obtain legal copies of the few apps they really need and use and get on to doing much better work with much less trouble. Rather than 10 pirated softwares that break down all the time on a Windows PC it is better to have 2 or 3 really good softwares running on Mac OS X.

I have to say that developers seem to be all over Mac OS X. No matter what you make (Web, Java, desktop apps, Perl, PHP, whatever) there is a way in for you on Mac OS X. Everything but Microsoft is there plus some Microsoft, too (Office, IE, and other desktop apps).

Java permits platform independence
There are plenty of developers who make a living by developing products for the Mac markets. But regardless, you could always use Java which is platform-independent -- and which allows you to still use the Mac and OS X as a development platform even as you create products which run under Windows and Linux, etc.

Of course, it's precisely this platform indpendence of Java that Microsoft hates because it can't then control everything.

Critical flaw of reasoning in SJ article
I disagree with your assertation that windows and linux install of Hard Drives are as trivial, I have found upgrading older PCs with new hard drives a pain due to bios limitations. Of course the newer the machine the less headaches, but I am speaking of upgrading older machines.

Why not switch...
If there are mac's under 1000 dollars they certainly are not on the apple website.. point us with a link why don't you?

Here's Your Link
You didn't ask me, but here is the URL.

Apple will never beat the assemblers on price -- if for no other reason than that it costs hundreds of millions to develop an operating system and the Dells and Gateways have no such R&D costs. Plus because of Apple's smaller market share, its per unit costs for manufacture are significantly higher. If its market share shot up to 15 percent, it could afford to reduce its prices further (because it would be offset by the increased volume).

Nevertheless, Apple is very price competitive all the same (I split the link into two segments because it upsets this blog/forum software to have such a long text string):

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/

72203/wo/Oh5nQdWxCQxy2EIqqmf17ctibU5/0.0.7.1.0.5.13.0.1.1.3.0.7.4.1.1.0

Why not switch...
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore/

It's pretty hard to navigate to, apple.com and then click on the "Store" tab on the top. The eMacs start at $799, as the nice little caption says.

Why not switch...
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71707/wo/
Ns5jWRbbveQp2358CWriFLtyGUk/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.2.1.0.0.0.1.0

Re: You forgot...
It's not an issue of an ISO being an ISO. Mac software is just not pirated like Windows software. There are probably many, many reasons for this. Here are some:

Once you do the extra work to get on a Mac (even if that's just lobbying your boss for a Mac instead of a PC, or promising your IT that you'll support the Mac yourself) you are probably going to do it right and spring a few hundred for some software to match. You weren't sitting there thinking you'd do better work on a Mac with no software on it.

Also, so much great software comes with EVERY Mac whereas what kind of software bundle you get with a PC is very sketchy. Many have none (40% of PC market is gray box). These days many Mac users don't venture out for more software for quite some time. There is a lot you can do with the iLife suite and it is free with your Mac along with Mac OS X. What's to pirate? People used to want to pirate Photoshop because it was $600 and all they wanted to do was block out some red eye in their photos or whatever, but now there is $99 Photoshop Elements that also comes free with many cameras, and iPhoto has red-eye reduction and other common stuff built-in for free.

I hated buying MS Windows software because it was a chore to install and it always seemed to be broken in 10 ways. With Mac software I have been thrilled and amazed by a lot of titles, and many have paid for themselves in less than a month, so I am always grinning when I find a title that I want to buy and use regularly.

I'm a music producer, and I was talking to a musician recently who said he used to use a Mac but then he bought a gray box PC from a friend that had all these MS Windows apps on it with no licenses and most recently he had a virus that wiped the whole system out so he was looking for free software again. I was like, "sorry, we're all on Macs in the first place, and in the second place we love our software and its developers and like to give them their cut, and third, who knows what kind of license/legal nightmare you are in for if you write and produce a hit record on a warez copy of Nuendo?"

So much better to work within your means even if that means less software. Great music (for example) can be made on a 4-track cassette multitrack that costs $149 so why screw with MS Windows and viruses and warez to get something that's illegal and unsupported and not reliable?

Why not switch...
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70108/wo/
Kz6kyt0S2dwx2cdbYaYudMveqE4/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.2.1.0.0.0.1.0

Watch line breaks!

IT Mentality
You are both arguing a different thing. Those IT guys/gals who are in charge of a totally MS network, aren't likely to switch, and think MS walks on water. Those IT people who are in charge of a network with some BSD, Linux, Solaris, Windows, Mac OS X, Mac OS 9.1, they are the people who see the comparison. I recently switched as well. After having exposure to all these OS all day long, and getting increasingly frusterated with Windows XP, I realized I just liked OS X better, I was more productive, and all the software I wanted was either free, or came with the PowerBook. And the fact that it's a BSD machine underneath!!! Makes it lovely...

Thanks Apple, for freeing me from wasting my day screwing with Windows...I won't be going back.

Why not switch...
No the Mac is still cheaper. You end up buying less of them and they live much longer useful lives.

For example, I have a Power Mac G3 here in the room that is still going from early 1999 and it has FireWire, flat-panel display, 1.5GB RAM. It paid for itself before the millenium and now it is a kickass iTunes jukebox for our AirPort network. I never kept a MS Windows PC longer than two years.

Also, the resale value on Macs is great. I had an original iBook at one point and I sold it 18 months later for a very good price. The net cost for that system was very small ... much lower than if I'd bought a PC that I'd have to just give away 18 months later.

Finally, you will have more time to make money, be with your family, because the Mac will just work, period.

Mac/PC can do anything Mac/PC can do
Most studies (including Gartner) show that support for Winbloze boxen costs more and requires more staff than Macs, box for box. Macs last longer too, improving overall ROI.

I think Apple's agressive pricing is chipping away at this long-held, obsolete idea that "Macs are more expensive".

4 wasn't a valid reason
Actually, it was not Photoshop, but Premiere that Adobe had a page saying it was faster on Windows than on PC. But that page, http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html , has been removed. Still, Google on that URL, and you'll find several articles discussing it.

Performance vs. Market
I admit I still carry bias from the days almost 20 years ago when as a dealer I did unauthorized 128K memory upgrades to closed architecture Macs.

As one who watched as IBM lost its grip on the PC and actually tried to kill off the Frankenstein they could no longer control, I cannot get past the open architecture hardware in the PC Genre.

I laughed pretty hard when some larger corporations pressured IBM into actually making a few more high end (then) PC genre machines.

It was a moment when the Frankenstein controlled them!

I also witnessed the scrap between Beta/VHS.

Ironic that the same company owned the patents on both formats, kept the better format for its own superior products. By licensing the inferior format to large numbers of cheap hardware makers, the VCR became a household item. The sheer market numbers pushed the superior Beta format right out of the market.
(Broadcast Super Beta survived as a nitch market.)

It took three Sherman tanks to kill each Panzer.
But the US flooded Europe with sheer numbers.

Nitch markets have severe limitations and hazards.

I'm a techie who watched MANY early computers come and go, I was a very technical oriented dealer, very qualified on many computers now defunct, Apple II+/IIE, CP/M genre, C64(1983!), Coleco Adam!, Atari ST, etc. I have seen mass market played against nitch markets for years.

I watched Epson ruin their own spot as king of the hill in the then still going pin printer market. They betrayed dealers when they tried mass marketing through large chains, mail order and even paper sellers. After forcing dealer stores to jump through hoops and impress them with a resume of technical capabilities and a photo of a glorious store front, they turned around and allowed terribly unqualified dealers to sell their products. My store made our disgust known by selling a truckload of their printers publicly at dealer cost. We had warned them, and asked them to control their market, and they said they cited restraint of trade laws (vs. all of the "qualification" they made us prove) but after our large advertised sale started, Epson called us up BEGGING us to stop. I said "I thought you said that would be illegal!".

Panasonic rapidly became the printer sold by most dealers for a few years..

One regional wholesaler tried a big push for Mac stuff, made a big money committment to Mac. They even tried to do their business books on Mac. No amount of Mac loyalty, however, could overcome some serious problems with functionality and availability of their accounting software, so their effort lasted about 7 months. (in ~1987)

Computers have progessively become mass market items sold by megastores that can wheel and deal to get profit margins by getting quantity breaks for mega numbers.

People don't expect the store people to have the sort of expertise that I maintained back when I ran small retail computer stores, built and sold some of the earliest XT clones in the midwest, etc.

Holding out for dealers to have a solid nitch, or for nitch machines, or for nitch software, is a major uphill battle.

Another word for a nitch could be "fringe".
The microcomputer industry in its early days
had a fine tradition of machine loyalists,
true believers and software/machine as a cause.
The first microcomputer chips were rejected
by the terminal maker they were offered to.
They were orphans!
And "hackers" used to be a good thing.

Today, however, don't loyalism and systems
as a "cause" fall apart?

Maybe you should ask the programmers from
Pakistan, India, and Russia.

I don't see them quibbling about elegance.
I talked to an Indian programmer and he asked
me if I programmed in COBOL.
I cringed and held up my hands saying
"Yes, but why would I ADMIT to it?"

But then I conceded that with faster and
faster processors now, even BASIC is coming back, as software slowness is overcome by hardware speed.

Greegor@hotmail.com

There would be no windows without Apple
Let's face it, without Apple the PC of today would look like very diffrent and much like the PC of over a decade ago. For all Microsoft's BS about innovating virtually every major advance in the PC GUI, music, video, storage media, networking, ports, etc. in the last twenty years has be led by Apple. Wanna know where PC's are heading, watch Apple. And marvel at how easy and seamless they are able to introduce new technology to users and how poorly Microsoft does the same. Why? Because Apple is still trying to chnage the world while Microsoft's goal simply profit; kludge something together and force folks to upgrade.

Why not switch...
The eMac is $799 for a complete G4 system with Mac OS X, iLife, etc. Compare to a Microsoft Windows XP Pro upgrade for $299.

IT Mentality
You must have been one of the lucky ones who was assigned oversight of the Linux or Solaris servers. In my experience, most large organizations have clear lines of responsibility defined -- with one very large set of IT people for Windows and then there are a few Unix "misfits" scattered about -- but seldom do the twain ever meet.

In all companies I've worked with, the "Windows people" never sat around to experiment with the Unix boxes. Quite the contrary, they were not allowed to touch them. It was only the people who were already the bona fide Unix geeks (and thus who were already sold on Unix) who were allowed to work with this platform.

Microsoft's omnipresence has just allowed people to think that crashes and protection faults and DLL hell and the abomination that is the "registry" -- not to mention all the security issues -- are all a part of the normal computing experience. They don't know any better.

It's the OS stupid
OS X is the business. The OS is what one spends all one's time in... and you are not going to be able to make me use kludgey Windows. Once someone uses OS X, they'll wonder why they didn't think of it earlier. "It just works"...

Not to mention, Mac's are fairly unbreakable:
My VPS's uptime;
%$ uptime
10:08AM up 11 days, 21:32, 1 user

My G4 PowerMac's uptime:
drewharp% uptime
10:08AM up 13 days, 12:25,

Mac's are weak on games though we have some of the biggys.

I belive most apps of the future will be written for the web and not for any OS. The web IS the OS... so which interface is better OS X or Windows? Point made.

Why not switch...
Maybe you are not in the USA? In that case your Apple Store Online may be different. In the USA, the $799 eMac is right there on the Apple Store homepage ... the eMac has been around for a couple of generations now. It's not esoteric or something.

store.apple.com

apple.com/emac

Betamax - VHS is Bad Analogy
The Macintosh has very high market share in key segments of the market. This includes graphics, prepress, publishing, music, education, and scientific, among others. The Macintosh has existed far longer than the Betamax format ever did -- not to mention that Apple continues to redefine the Macintosh to make it relevant and to push the envelope.

Based on your analogy, then BMW should close up shop on grounds of being a troubled company. And yet, how would you like to run a company with 2.5 percent of the world's auto market?

Apple and Dell have shown profits in each of the last three years. How many other technology companies can say that at a time of a difficult economy? Imagine, then, how Apple will perform when economic times are GOOD.

Performance vs. Market
Sorry man ... MS Windows is a niche ... cheap OS for gray-box Internet Bubble computing. Apple has been around 25 years and Macs have been around for 20, outlasting all of those systems you mentioned. The Mac is stronger now that it's every been ... our systems crash about once a year for the past two years with all-day everyday use in a studio environment (it's like server needs on the desktop).

I don't know how you can seriously mention 128k Macs when the Power Mac G5 is out there doing what it does next to the shit that Dell is still shoveling. If you have some sense of computer history then go and read

apple.com/g5/

apple.com/macosx/

and come into the 21st century. There is life after DOS as well as COBOL.

Proprietary software?
"Looking at the economy, few have the disposable income to purchase a Mac as a second computer. Although the Mac computers are more economical than ever, look at the added costs of proprietary Mac software, additional Mac hardware, and accessories."

What proprietary software is that? Is it the same as Microsoft's definition of proprietary where anything that doesn't come out of Redmond fits?

My point is that software designed with the Mac in mind is no less proprietary than software designed for Windows.

Secondly, there is a wealth of non-proprietary software available for the Mac. Where I'm using non-proprietary as anything that is developed using standard frameworks. The majority of this comes as a benefit of Mac OS X being based off of BSD -- having a first-class Java environment doesn't hurt.

Thirdly, the average home user wouldn't need to purchase any software to get a lot of use out of a Mac. You don't need to purchase Photoshop Album or Picasa because you already have iPhoto. You've also got Mail, Address Book, iMovie, iTunes, iCal, TextEdit, and AppleWorks. That covers all the basics as far as the average user is concerned. Developers even get the Developer Tools for free.

I'd say the main reason there aren't more switchers is simply because not enough Windows users have actually used a Mac running OS X. Since I switched, I've noticed a ripple effect where friends that have seen and used my Macs have bought ones themselves. I think it is only a matter of time before there are enough people out there using them to influence their realm of acquaintences into getting one themselves.

You're definitely right about the economy, though.

Mac on the desks of physicists
At my wife's company they went from 10% Macs to 60% Macs in the past year and the head of IT has been sent to "Mac School". PowerBook G4 17" with AirPort and Bluetooth and SuperDrive and no crashing really fit the bill for these guys because they spend all their time in between a spreadsheet and a TV commercial and the Mac can do all of that. The hardest thing for the IT staff was to realize they don't have to do 10 things to a new Mac before they give it to the user.

Missing the point of the Switcher adds
"grow their niche" ... ha ha ... their niche is "digital content creation and managment" ... I forsee it growing.

Steve Jobs would disagree but...
I agree that Steve Jobs loves to debut new technologies, but I think what really drives him is what they do for users. They often reduce a particular task (say digital music management, or editing raw movie clips) from a 20-step geek task to a 1 or 2 step "regular joe" task. It's not that we "regular joes" are lazy or stupid and can't learn the other 18 steps; it's that we are too busy being musicians and artists and doctors and such to learn the 20 steps to music management or whatever. So when Apple makes it simple and easy and fun and reliable, we end up doing new things that we hadn't done before. Steve goes "look at what you can do now on your Mac!"

If you watch Steve's keynotes, notice that when he's standing he is showing off technology and GHz but when he sits at a system he is all about the task and what the user can do now more easily or at much higher quality than before.

Also, I think he likes driving the values or standards of the industry higher as well. The stuff that comes out of Apple is VETTED. It is not a half-ass solution. Microsoft pales in comparison on software quality and production values.

There would be no windows without Apple
You've hit on an important reason why schools should consider placing large Mac orders for their students. Many schools mistakenly purchase Windows systems under the premise that these students will be learning the OS that's likely to be in widespread use when the students get out of school. That may be so, but if history is any guide, that OS is likely to look more like the Mac OS of today than the Windows of today. I recently had to buy a Windows XP notebook for business reasons. In choosing it, I was struck how much the offerings resembled my old G3 PowerBook in features. While XP has generally performed better than I expected, my expectations were very low. I'm pleased with the purchase, but it really can't touch the G4 PowerBooks.

It's the OS stupid
13 days? That's /nothing./

Before they took it out of my office, the iBook I had sitting next to me had well over a hundred and fifty days of uptime.

:-)

Steve Jobs would disagree but...
I agree that Steve Jobs loves to debut new technologies, but I think what really drives him is what they do for users. They often reduce a particular task (say digital music management, or editing raw movie clips) from a 20-step geek task to a 1 or 2 step "regular joe" task. It's not that we "regular joes" are lazy or stupid and can't learn the other 18 steps; it's that we are too busy being musicians and artists and doctors and such to learn the 20 steps to music management or whatever. So when Apple makes it simple and easy and fun and reliable, we end up doing new things that we hadn't done before. Steve goes "look at what you can do now on your Mac!"

If you watch Steve's keynotes, notice that when he's standing he is showing off technology and GHz but when he sits at a system he is all about the task and what the user can do now more easily or at much higher quality than before.

Also, I think he likes driving the values or standards of the industry higher as well. The stuff that comes out of Apple is VETTED. It is not a half-ass solution. Microsoft pales in comparison on software quality and production values.

Partly true, but not quite
The Windows troll thinks "software development" means shrink-wrap boxes for MS Windows users.

Most software development is still in-house, still custom. Microsoft is called "the biggest software company in the world" often but it is not; it's just the biggest "shrink-wrap" software company. There is always a missing qualifier in everything Microsoft says. That's how they can have "industry-leading" in everything they do, because what they mean is "MS Windows industry", not the actual wider industry that they're a part of.

Mac isn't going the right way
>Macs are harder to upgrade

ROFL!

I note an interesting contradiction here:

3. Looking at the economy, few have the disposable income to purchase a Mac as a second computer. Although the Mac computers are more economical than ever, look at the added costs of proprietary Mac software, additional Mac hardware, and accessories.

Current typical hardware & accessories (i.e. printers, scanners, cameras, drives) will work with either a Macintosh or an MS-Windows PC. So, that leaves the software. (Right?) You call it "proprietary." (What exactly does that mean? That it only runs on a Macintosh? Just like some software only runs on MS-Windows?)

The typical consumer Mac comes bundled with a whole bunch of software. (Like iPhoto, iMovie, AppleWorks...) However, you feel you need other software. Okay fine.

4. What about digital photography and graphics? Well, the PC has hardware/software options thanks to HP scanning technology and Adobe Photoshop and other software for Windows. Again, Mac users will argue Mac is a better platform. They may be right, but the PC does offer viable options.

Am I missing something here? Now you say that the Windows-based PC is fine, since you can buy 3rd party software for it to take the place of the software that comes bundled on the Mac!?

Why doesn't the need to purchase additional "proprietary" software for the MS-Windows based PC count against it?

Replies.... 1, 3 maybe valid
1. Most people are already comfortable with an IBM compatible PC with Windows OS. An Apple Mac with Mac OS X may be easier to learn, but if you are already familiar with a PC with Windows, why switch and deal with a learning curve, even if it's nearly flat?

I doubt I'll ever get my mom off of her beloved Windows machine. Then again, she vowed to never switch from Wordperfect/DOS so maybe when she’s fed up with the licensing crap coming out of Redmond like everyone else, she’ll finally upgrade.

2. Looking at PC saturation into most homes and offices, these homes and offices are not going to go out and buy a second computer, even if it's a Mac.

Soon, PCs will have problems keeping up. Lets face it x86 is reaching its physical limits. They aren't going to be growing like this PPC970 line will and there is less software written for IA32/64 than even OS9/OSX.

3. Looking at the economy, few have the disposable income to purchase a Mac as a second computer. Although the Mac computers are more economical than ever, look at the added costs of proprietary Mac software, additional Mac hardware, and accessories.

Hmm... I have found this frustrating. I want the ppc hardware, a G4 for instance to slam Linux on and run for only a couple of hundred dollars to serve as a file server for the next 10 years, but can't find anything cheap enough. I’d like to see Apple release bare bones Macs for less, but realistically that can’t happen. They need to pay for their OS X development.

4. What about digital photography and graphics? Well, the PC has hardware/software options thanks to HP scanning technology and Adobe Photoshop and other software for Windows. Again, Mac users will argue Mac is a better platform. They may be right, but the PC does offer viable options.

You may be right, but the Mac does offer viable options. My Hp USB scanner worked flawlessly the first time I used it and so has every digital device with USB or Firewire connections. As a matter of fact, I didn't have to install any new drivers for my 8mm 5 Megapixel firewire digital video camera. I just plugged it in, popped up the pre-installed standard iMovie and started sucking down video without any configuration. If you deserve flaming in this article it would be on this point. I have experienced better handling of photography and graphics. Microsoft doesn't even accomplish this. Did you even research this claim?

5. For developers, the PC is the preferred platform, with or without Windows. Most developers are developing applications to run on the PC or related Servers. Still, few are developing Mac applications, where having a Mac would be beneficial or necessary.

Which developers are you talking about here? I don't know too many that make the decision to tie their application to the PC. It's generally the customer of the software company that drives what platform their software runs on. Either that or profits drive the decision, if writing your software for the Mac doesn't make dollars, it doesn't make sense. I am a developer, I write Linux applications and write code for SGIs Irix at work. I was astonished when I downloaded ProjectBuilder for free and had a fully implemented gui builder application and gcc 3.1 readily available to me for free.

Most of this article seems short sighted. For an OS that is in early childhood it has tons of “switchers” already. Look at the Slashdot crowd. It used to be primarily Linux geeks with MS flames on it, now I see increasing OSX converts on there. If you download Fink you get several thousand free applications. While running under X isn’t as nice as native OS X, Steve Jobs nailed it when he adopted the open source community and the plethora of free software that open source has by building a BSD based OS.

On the other side of the fence I see my mom whose probably spent 2-3 thousand on MS $30 picture software that she’ll just not get rid of until her windows versions outgrow the software. I may have to buy her a Mac to persuade her that there’s something better out there.

"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
The IBM compatable PC market developed because of a mistake on IBM's part. They did not think to sign an exclusive license with Microsoft for the operating system, because of which other companies were able to reverse engineer the PC and ship their versions with the OS. IBM did not just hand out the design and invite other companies to join in.

Proprietary?

Duh... There is a few others...
1. There are few top shelf games released at the same time on MacOSX as they are on Windows. Sometimes it takes MONTHS if not YEARS for that to happen. (Games drive much of the consumer industry.)

2. There are no high-end CAD applications for MacOSX. No Catia, no Unigraphics among others...

Here's Your Link
$1200 in canada.. still too high.. 799 US may be true.. but $1200 is a lot for a computer.

Proprietary?

3. Looking at the economy, few have the disposable income to purchase a Mac as a second computer. Although the Mac computers are more economical than ever, look at the added costs of proprietary Mac software, additional Mac hardware, and accessories.

This is especially silly, speaking of costs of "proprietary" Mac software. If I remember the word proprietary propperly than the concideration should be the cost of proprietary Microsoft software. All those very expensive forced-march OS upgrades have a really ugly price structure. Apple's more timely updates are much better priced, but lack the mechanisims to make them manditory that Microsoft seems to use these days. Really, aside from the operating systems, there is no "proprietary" software anymore, Mac or PC, alternatives abound, but tend to be more vigerous on more open platform (like Linux, and now OS X).
Just checked the definition of "proprietary," almost everything from Microsoft is "proprietary' (except where forced otherwise by legal judgements), Mac OS X has many non-propritery/less proprietary components.

Duh... There is a few others...
Here is a start.

What is a lot?
From where I sit, $1200 (Canadian) is not "a lot" for a computer. Simply because a computer is not THE cheapest does not then mean it costs "a lot."

A lot would be $3500. Let me suggest you are employing binary thinking -- to wit, either a computer is cheap or it's expensive. There is middle ground, you know.

So, yes, $1200 is not the cheapest. But it's still on the low side and is perfectly reasonable -- especially when you consider the studies which show that the Mac's net total cost of ownership (which takes into account rate of repair, lifespan, support, etc) is lower than that of the typical Wintel box. Of course, if it's a moot point because you can't afford it regardless, that's one thing -- but it doesn't necessarily mean Apple's pricing structure is out of bounds. It may just mean that your budget is tight.

Steve Jobs would disagree but...
Very good points.

Resolution
I would hope O'Reilly realizes that if an article doesn't come close to fitting on a 1024x768 desktop, people are not going to read it. No one wants to play with a horizontal scroll bar.

Give me a break!

1. Most people are already comfortable with a PC running Windows.

A: Most people I know don't consider daily crashes comfortable. The Mac is solid under OS X...no crashes.

2. Looking at PC saturation into most homes and offices, these homes and offices are not going to go out and buy a second computer, even if it's a Mac.

A: Who cares. Sell the PC to some dork on eBay and buy a Mac, thereby negating the need to buy a second computer.

3. Looking at the economy, few have the disposable income to purchase a Mac as a second computer. Although the Mac computers are more economical than ever, look at the added costs of proprietary Mac software, additional Mac hardware, and accessories.

A: Oh come on give me a break! Your trying to justify why not to buy a SECOND computer. Ditch the PC! Nobody has two computers...why would you unless you are an IT guy like me. Secondly, proprietary Mac software?!?!? WHAT!?!? There isn't any proprietary software! What the heck are you talking about? Additional Mac hardware and accessories? Ok, so what are those extra things you buy for your PC called? Are they free? Printers, scanners, mp3 players? Your comments are lame and weak.

4. What about digital photography and graphics? Well, the PC has hardware/software options thanks to HP scanning technology and Adobe Photoshop and other software for Windows. Again, Mac users will argue Mac is a better platform. They may be right, but the PC does offer viable options.

A: HP scanning technology? And you were talking about proprietary software and hardware a minute ago? The Mac has the best support for digital cameras over the PC. Apple has worked hard to insure that 9 out of 10 cameras work just by plugging them in. No drivers, no special software. You just use iPhoto, the most incredible software for photo management ever...and it's FREE. Does Microsoft give you anything for free? Rarely if ever.

5. For developers, the PC is the preferred platform, with or without Windows. Most developers are developing applications to run on the PC or related Servers. Still, few are developing Mac applications, where having a Mac would be beneficial or necessary.

A: Development on the Mac is at an all time high. There are thousands of developers who are writing software on the Mac. And with Apple's new XCode coming out this Fall, developing on the Mac is going to be even better than before. If you want to write PC code, you do it on a PC. If you want to write Mac code, you do it on a Mac. Of course I know several developers who do PC development on the Mac...without any problems.

In closing, your 5 statements on why you don't want to switch to a Mac are similar to the same old rhetoric babbled on since 1984. I am sure your office smells like the stale air of a beaurocrat who follows the other lemmings and colors inside the lines. If thats who you are, then you don't belong using a Mac. But if you dare to be different, if you challenge the status quo...if you color outside the lines and think for yourself rather than like the other lemmings in the world...you belong sitting in front of the greatest computer, running the greatest operating system ever made...a Macintosh.

Thank you very much.

Kevin
user of a Mac since June 1984

Resolution
You are SO right -- and it's unfortunate that a site as otherwise as sophisticated as this one has this apparent limitation. I think I was the first one to cause this problem when I posted a message that included a very long URL. But when I noticed the problem, I went back to edit the message and split the URL into two segments -- alas, only to find that someone else had likewise pasted a long URL and left it there.

In any case, the blog software should compensate for this so we are not all at the mercy of long text strings.

statistics in perspective
We should look at the percentage of new 'upgrade' computers that are macs. Apple is really competing with new top of the line Dells, not with old computers bought years ago. ...and Apple is not competing with Microsoft, at least not yet. It's 5% market share shouldn't be compared with M$, but with the 17% Dell market share. Apple makes its profit off of hardware, so its a hardware company not a software company.

Anyway, the swtichers Apple should target are the ones in the market for a new wintel box -- these are the people that apple gains the most by targetting to switch to Mac.

Re: Give me a break!
Quote:
1. Most people are already comfortable with a PC running Windows.

A: Most people I know don't consider daily crashes comfortable. The Mac is solid under OS X...no crashes.
/Endquote.

You can not with a straight face say this regarding the finder. Don't even try. Stick with the truth in you reasons. Often that is good enough. If you want a crash just use samba shares on a powerbook and let the system to sleep. After wakeup at home - neverending beachball with a hard reboot required.

Big Picture
Good for you. You have discovered a bug in OS X. But no one claims that OS X is bug free. The question, rather, (at least in this context), is which OS is on balance more stable and more secure.

How many switchers equal success?
"unless pc users are discarding their pc's after 6-12 months of use, which i doubt."

Switcher here. Before I switched I did indeed "throw my pc out" after 6-12 months. I used to give them to the salvation army and goodwill but then they started rejecting them because they where too outdated. I even tried giving them to computer stores to part out.

The fact is that if you're a heavy pc user a i386 based system is put together so shoddily that it actually does break down: i must refer to the common phrase of burning out which I frequently used to describe the break down of parts in my system after a gauranteed 2-3 months use.

Remember the scene in office space where the printer always ate whatever it was printing? Remember the coders frustration? Remember how they finally got it and bashed it to bits? That's my experiance with a pc in a nutshell. I even bashed the ones I couldn't give to anyone. Near the end though I wouldn't even give them that courtesy; I would just toss them in the dumpster.

I feel sorry for those mac users that switched to a pc. That is an entire hell I don't wish on anyone.

Savor the Apple. Savor the OSX. Savor the Anima.

I wondered if it's occurred to anyone..
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that sales is not the right way to judge a companies sucess. For instance if you were to try a see how healthy a cities populace was by seeing how many babies a year were popping out you wouldn't even be close to touching the mark.

Gee, how original
All of the arguments that Steve Anglin makes are the exact same stuff that I heard all through the 1990s. Five years ago I summed up this attitude - "Who cares if Apple has better hardware and OS, you should only base your PC purchase decision on who has the most market share." I just can't believe that Steve didn't refer to Apple as "beleaguered"...

Missing the point...
Mac's OSX is a PC operating system at heart, LINUX!

You can get ride of OSX and install any flavor of Linux for the PPC.

Let's not forget the PC has over 130 flavors of Linux to install. Stability is not a factor here... User choice is, the PC offers more options at a MUCH better price. Get over it.

Re: Give me a break!
Samba causes crashes because it emulates Microsoft's (very bad) file sharing protocol a bit too well. :)

Numbers don't show the switching!
Right now, I believe the switching is occurring, just not by the general populace. First, the tech savvy pioneers switch, then the general public follows. Judging by JavaOne and O'Reilly OSCon, the trendsetters are switching en masse. I was surprised to see what must have been a majority of portables as Apple PowerBooks at O'Reilly OSCon just a week ago. People have written about how many Apple PowerBooks were at JavaOne (I wasn't there). Naturally, Apple's WWDC was riddled with PBooks! :-)

I should mention in all fairness, I saw at least three Apple PBooks running Linux (!) at OSCon. So there's something else for the mix. In any case, Unix on portables is being used by a majority of the trendsetters (or at least those with portables who stay current by attending annual conferences).

Patience! The switching has begun but is just in the early stage(s).

hmm.. what about *BSD or *Linux?
Ain't a guru. But don't need any kind of crappy software (ie Windows, Internet Explorer and so on).
Just another happy FreeBSD user.

FreeBSD is a true open source OS. You can download it for free or buy it at www.freebsdmall.com

Links

www.freebsd.org/
www.n0dez.com/freebsd/

RESALE value
This concept is completely foreign to the PC community.
I've sold most of the Macs I've purchased in the last 10
years. When I told my friend that I'd sold a 3 year old
Mac tower (with other stuff) for $1000 he was astonished.
"WHAT?!", he said. "Once you take a PC home it has zero
resale value!"

Yes. The cost of the item is always purchase price minus
resale price. You think this way with cars when you trade
them in; PC people don't think this way with PCs because
the equation can be simplified so easily given resale value
always equals zero.

Argue about software availability, reliability, ease of use,
and so on. Fine. But cost is no longer a point: the Mac
platform is AT LEAST as cheap as the PC platform in
my experience, and perhaps cheaper.

Open Standards - Open Source
I couldn't agree more! And that is really what is important to me. I want a great address book with all the frills that I can send contact from, with out exporting, to my friends who have linux and windows, which by the way I do a lot! And I'm really tired of being invaded by spy ware, and viruses that circumvent Window security. I'm avid enough to keep it under control, but to be honest, its a chore. I never run into these issues on the Mac, and its nice not to have to worry about security, or programs that are constantly installing in the background. Those things just don't happen on the Mac. In some way I'm really glad that this is my own private gold. It's really funny too, after using the Mac, getting to know it well, and keeping up with Apple it seems that the tables have completely changed. Microsoft is so much like the Apple of the late 80's and early 90's. Your not getting the proprietary hard ware per say, but man are you getting it in the software. Where as Apple is like no other computer company around now. It's just that people don't realize how dangerous it is to get locked into proprietary software. It 200 times more dangerous than the getting locked into proprietary hardware! Apple once was proprietary on both ends, but now its just the processors and the GUI. And even though I don't thing the G3's and G4 performance was significantly better than Pentium III's, the G5 is a whole different ball park. This is truly next generation computing. Price will always be an issue, I really wish Apple would just bring the prices down on there low-end models a couple hundred bucks. But there Laptop prices are unbeatable. No PC can compete with the laptops hands down. Which is why that's all I'll buy until the desktop models come down.

Re: Give me a break!
Sounds like a keyboard driver error, I never have that happen and I save all my MP3s, and Digital Photos out on a linux server running samba.

Flawed
I am a windows programmer that has programmed for MS Active Server Pages for many years, and have spent this last year doing so from an Apple iBook and an Apple Powerbook, both with OS X 10.2. Why? Because I got tired of my Windows workstations crashing for every stupid little thing. I am a total fan of Windows as a server but as a workstation? No thanks.

Most of the points in the article are hard to support. It does not do me any good that XP is much friendly than any other Windows before if it is literally impossible to run an nvidia driver that did not ship with windows. Or how hard is it to run any windows machine as a workstation for more than 90 days without a clean install.

The most shocking part of my switch was not the software or getting used to it. Nope. My text editor, Barebones' BBEdit Pro, is superior to the asp editor I used for windows. My MS Office v.X has everything I was used to have with MS Office XP. Heck, even my Diablo II CD came with a Mac OS version bundled-in. What really shocked me is that suddenly I found myself NOT spending an hour or more per day keeping the PC running. A mac runs by itself forever, and you don't have to worry about it getting sluggish just by using it.

Finally, let's talk flexibility. My Titanium Powerbook was handed to me with 3 operating systems built-in. I can run programs for OS X, OS 9 and a hell of a lot of unix programs without having to reboot to a different partition. On top of that I have the MS remote desktop client to connect to our terminal servers. No terminal server available? No problem, I have Connectix Virtual PC 6.0 with Windows 2000 Pro, which btw runs like a champ. With a wintel laptop I would have to reboot into alternate partitions for Windows XP and either freeBSD or Linux, and any mac compatibility would have been completely out of the picture.

Missing the point...
Yeah except I can't run the Flash plugin...

Give me a break!
nice post Mac lemming.

Disagree with the articale
I design and develop entrpise applications for a living, our clients run on windows and we are using Sun OS for the middle and back end. I switched about a year and a half ago when my first child was born. I was fustraded with how windows didn't integrate with my DV camera. If it did work then my scanner wouldn't work, plus I was going to have to shell extra money for a DVD burner, and additional software to make movies and DVD.

I figured if I was going to do all this I might as well buy a new system designed to do this kind of work, SGI was out of my price range but Apple was within my budget. Since my Mac also came with Apache, GCC, could run MS Office etc. I figured why not make this my main system and haven't regreted the move.

Since then I've helped my in-laws move from Windows to a Mac, a college buddy and his wife move to a Mac, My brother in-law who is an IBM consultant is looking to move to a Mac, and finally my wife who is also in the computer industry is planning on replacing her home system with a Mac.

I will be replacing my Sony Laptop as soon as Apple releases the next 15" PowerBook with the integraged bluetooth, airport extream, and luminated keyboard.

My only grip so far is that, it is taking Oracle to long to finish porting thier apps to OS X. Once that happens I'll put in for a G5 at work.

Rob Potts
Software Engineer

rob.potts@mindspring.com

4 wasn't a valid reason
IMHO it was probably iMovie more than anything else.

iMovie: high-power, high-quality, easy to use, free for every OSX user.

I wondered if it's occurred to anyone..
Your analagy is good, but inherently flawed.

A cities population has 2 ways of growing: birth, and by migration.

Apple only has 1 way to grow. By people buying their stuff. Migration can NEVER happen because of Macs hardware.

My suggestion would be to develop a PC version of mac (I never said it would be easy) to 'switch' potential users over. (You know... pull a "check out how cool we are! But, we're even cooler on this hardware!)

iApps
He points to Photoshop and HP utils as "viable" options for graphics and imaging. The "common" user he mentions oh so many times is not going to purchase these things. The iApps that make the Mac platform preferable for general photo and movie uses are bundled. Plus, what is with him implying a mac must be this secondary computer? And the price thing is definitely not an issue like it used to be.

*Yawn*
Same.
Old.
Weak.
Ass.
Arguments.

Enough already. Both platforms have their pro's and con's, but to say that a Mac isn't worth it's price, has any applications, or whatever the hell else he was flapping his gums about, is nuts. I've been on both sides of the fence, and I'm pleased with both platforms. So stop badmouthing the damn Mac. Some people use it, love it and even make money supporting it. Maybe you should stfu, read a manual and stop being afraid of the Mac. Scared little boy.

Switchers I've known
I as well am a software developer, and do not use windows as a desktop unless I really really have to for a particular project. I had been using Linux as a desktop for many years but when OS X brought OpenStep back to production I was hooked. I can do 95% of my development work on my os x box, with the other 5% done on a windows box simply because virtual pc is to slow. I was very surprised that there was never a switch ad targeting *NIX developers. Alas I switched, and will most likely never go back.

Missing the point...
Actually the heart of OS X is BSD.
BTW, Linux is not a "PC" operating system, it's a multiplatform operating system that can run on anything from a pda to a maineframe. And btw a Mac is a PC, it's a Personal Computer. Get over it. Stop talking PC vs MAC its x86 vs PPC

Give me a break!
No matter how much I wish it were true, OS X does crash. Just not as frequently. Just as Linux crashes. No code is bullet-proof, some is just debugged :-)

GIGO
what an ignorant response. maybe durring the pre os x days, but we're running OpenStep now baby. The best of the best for development, scientific research etc...

Performance vs. Market
Errrr!!! *raised eyebrows*
And ur point is?

Why switch?
So after you invest another seven hundred bucks into Photoshop and a couple hundred into the HP scanner, where is your price point for the PC? Isn't there some kind of editor that reads this stuff before it goes out to the public?

JeffH

Why switch?
You will be happy to know that Adobe do crossplatform upgrades. Chill.

Why switch to Mac ?
If you want to work ON a computer, i.e. produce or create anything, the Mac is a cheap, stable, and effective alternative.

If you want to work AT a computer you should use a PC with either Windows or Linux on it. Here you will spend most of your time on getting things to actually work. And when it finally works, you start all over again, or every third month or so.

I will bet my PC on that 75% of the Worlds Windows install base is actually, right now, at home sleeping, doing noting else than gathering dust - OR - being reinstalled, updated, or twisted or tweaked in every possible way - or participating in an Install Orgy, an event addictive for most Windows users.

If you are addicted to Windows or Linux Install-Orgies, don't switch to a Mac!

RESALE value
The thinking is all f-cked up when it comes to resale value and there are suckers born every minute. This not something to be proud of. When a user actually thinks that well I paid 1500 two years ago and a new one cost the same then it MUST be worth 1000 is just mind boggling. My theory is that they are resold due to their design and can be used just like any other vase or furniture but as a real computer worth the money expected of the salesperson. No way no how.

RESALE value
To add to my own post I would also state this conception is also due to the stagnation of performance of the platform. Thank heavens for IBM.

Numbers don't show the switching!
uhuh, yeah thats why Mac has been showing those comerials for the last year or so and yet there aren't many swicthers, there were more swicthers from the Atari to IBM Pc's (350,000+ in the first year and a half) than there is to PC to Mac.. so don't tell me its in the begining stages... POR QUE?

Re. switching to a Mac
and....uhhh...I forgot.

Common people that want to resize or add a picture to the 11 e-mails they send every year or so, should turn to NASA for image processing. They know how to do it! Adobe Photoshop is much to simple for this task.

Regarding price comparisons in general: usually you get what you pay for.

Re. switching to a Mac
In the "old days" the argument was: 'We don use Mac's, my boy, the Mac is infected with the GUI thing'. 'No no, my boy, here we use command line based systems like MS-Dos. it's more safe and accurate'.

Why not switch...
>> I just can't rationalize $1800.

You can have an eMac for $799.

Developers don't use Macs?
That's odd. I'm sitting here at work right now writing software for the Mac. All the modern computers I own are Macs.

I've been developing for both Mac and Windows in C++ for several years.

Hmmm, I guess I should dump all my Macs and run out to buy some crappy Dell PC. I got news for you - it ain't going to happen.

I've been working on an app I think will be a commercial success. Its coming out for Mac first and PC later. I'll probably hire someone to do the windows version. I've developed for Windows for years, but its still a pain. Admitedly most of the Mac work I do is applications and most of the PC work I've done is either driver level or cross platform code. Using Win32 system calls to get things done is painful for me (and lots of other people) compared to programming the Mac.

I do both Carbon and Cocoa programming and I've been a professional programmer since 1995.

Misplaced Java Support
>> The Java VMs are probably comparable when it comes to raw speed, but the user interface is snappier in Windows than in Linux, and OS X is the worst of the bunch, verging on being unusable.

I strongly disagree with you. I develop Java for mostly Windows user using an 700 MHz iBook running Mac OS X Jaguar. My program looks much better on OS X than on any version of Windows, and performs equally well on both platforms. Most Java IDEs I used are written in Java and feels as responsive as native OS X apps. For instance, JBuilder has a very complex UI but runs very well on my entry level iBook - it's definitely snappier than MS Word.

Re: Give me a break!
I have noticed that in 10.2.6, that is often avoidable with a simple force quit on the finder.

Oh, please...
This fantasy of OSX on Intel is NEVER going to happened.

But you go ahead and dream, unfortunately your persistance is NOT going to pay-off.

Mac isn't going the right way
I hate to say this, but my 8 years old son can write better than this idiot!

It always amaze me that so many Wintel users have such low intelligence, they just don't deserve a Mac.

Duh... There is a few others...
CAD programs for the Mac:

3D
VectorWorks (also a top program on the PC)
FormZ (new 4.0 version out this month)

2D
MacDraft
PowerCADD

There are both MCAD and ACAD programs for the Mac. Look out for my review of the above in Desktop Engineering Magazine later this year. DE actively covers all platforms, including Mac. Apparently, they think it's important.

Mary E Tyler

Geeks are switching
There are many switchers among the alpha geeks, including James Gosling and his Java team at Sun Microsystem, Tim Berners-Lee, and many Slashdot and O'Reilly editors including Tim O'Reilly himself.

Critical flaw of reasoning in SJ article
Replacement of failed components is a constant task in Windows machines I work with. Mac Replacements are far fewer.

"just shove the drive in and boot it"? I'd love to in Windows if I could. On most machines, it's a specialised task.

proprietary mac software?
What is proprietary Mac software and how is that different than proprietary Windows software? On the Mac I can simple download and compile Linux/Unix software just fine. I can't do that with Windows so maybe that's what you mean by proprietary?

As for hardware and accessories, what part of USB, IDE, PCI, 1394 am I missing? I can't think of a single device that wouldn't be cross platform.

proprietary mac software?
Proprietary Mac software isn't any different than proprietary Windows software. He's just arguing that if you've already bought the Windows proprietary software, it's hardly an advantage to buy it once again for another platform. (Since some companies do have a cross-platform upgrade option, it may be cheaper than buying a new copy, but most often it's not free.)

Secondly, you certainly can download and compile Linux/Unix software under Windows: just use Cygwin. Not being a graphics designer and only doing the occasional photo editing, my primary photo editor under Windows XP is the GIMP, and I'm quite happy to have it. Don't shortchange the open source software options under Windows just because you don't like Microsoft.

You're completely right about the convergence of hardware standards, though, and you're getting more right with each passing day: many of the new devices that you can buy today will work with either platform. But that doesn't help your uncle Fred still has the serial/parallel port scanner he bought years ago, or your cousin Mary who has an older digital camera requiring software only supported under Windows. (Sure, you could say I'm now crossing the hardware/software boundary, but the effect is the same: the old stuff doesn't work with the new machine.) The point he's making is that they're not just throwing down about a grand for a new computer, they're also having to throw down even more money to replace old accessories that worked just fine, only because they moved to a new machine.

Sure, Macs do look nice, they seem to have lots of great software, and I do find them incredibly easy to use (except for the stupid one button mice... ugh!). But there are practical and pragmatic reasons not to switch.

Geeks are switching
The point isn't that certain high-profile geeks are switching (though that might help the campaign), it's that normal people aren't switching. Alpha geeks have also staunchly stood behind other platforms that have since fallen by the wayside: PDPs, VAXen (there are some great DEC quotes about VAX vs. UNIX), NeXT (though you could say it's now reborn as OS X and they were right), BeOS, and undoubtedly several more that I haven't even heard of. They need millions of average users to keep the platform alive, not just 10 famous ones.

Developers don't use Macs?
He says that Windows is the preferred development platform, and I'd amend that by saying it's the preferred development platform for most commerical developers.

Say you're trying to make money as a programmer, or even imagine you're a software development company; the idea is the same. First you have to write a great product, or at least good enough that the users find it advantageous. And then you have to get as many people as possible to buy it. Now it seems that Windows has about 95% of the desktop market share and Apple has about 3.5% (at least according to an IDC survey at the end of 2002... sorry, best data I could find). If you're in business and you want to maximize your profits, which platform should you develop for?

Now of course, this is a bit oversimplified. I said desktop market share, and there are also server developers out there. And even within the desktop market, there are important subdivisions: the desktop publishing and design field seems to have a strong (and well justified) bias toward using Macs. That is, you need to do your research before you decide what to develop under. Or say you're developing open source software (for which some get paid), then the most likely choice is an open source platform.

That 95% figure does stand out though, doesn't it? It doesn't mean people aren't making money off of the other percentages, but it does mean that developing for Windows makes it much easier to reach a gigantic install base.

Do please keep developing for Macs. Not only is the competition is good for the industry, I think they're great machines. All the same, he's justified in saying that all that the primary development platform today is Windows.

Why switch?
I don't understand... aren't you going to invest that same 700 bucks into Mac photoshop and the same 200 bucks into a Mac scanner? His point is, the money's already been spent on the PC version, and the solution works. Where's the big advantage in switching if you have to (1) buy a new computer, (2) buy a new scanner, and (3) pay for the cross-platform Adobe upgrade?

Apple's switch campaign is trying to target those people who already have PCs, and this author was making the point that Macs photo scanning and editing abilities aren't really that much better than PCs.

Gee, how original
First of all, if the market share difference is 51% to 49%, then it should definitely not be a deciding factor. 75% to 25%? Still probably not. But 95% to 3%? The question becomes a bit different. There's much less incentive for hardware and software manufacturers to target the a platform that's owned by only 3% of users, which means a year or two down the road when some unexpected new piece of hardware or killer app appears, it might never make it to your platform.

Now if you're content with what's available today (and that's a viable argument now more than it ever was before), this is less of a deciding factor. In addition, the fact that you can compile lots of open source products on any platform (yes, on Windows too, stop ignoring Cygwin) and that Java lived up at least a tiny but to its cross-platform claim means that you may not care as much. But it's a point nonetheless.

Since you're interested in talking history, let's look back at 1997. Apple was bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars every year and was on the verge of collapse. Coincidentally, Microsoft was hearing claims of anti-trust violations. What happened? Apple received a large cash infusion from Microsoft to allow it to continue running, and Microsoft now had a competitor that could stand up, if only on one leg.

Would they still be making new Macs today if Microsoft hadn't been charged with anti-trust violations? Who knows.

proprietary mac software?
Propiertary Mac software is when you've bought Mac OS X 10.1 and then you have to buy Mac OS X 10.2 which is mostly a big patch over all that bugs that present in 10.1

As for hardware accessories I don't know what missing you but I'm missing drivers for my Net Scroll mouse (as well as for many other ones). I'm also missing a good CD-ROM that is able to read rewritables (not that "brand" LG), I'm also missing non-buggy driver for that CD-ROM, that properly understands ISO 9660 format, etc.

Marketshare & quality
The smaller the market, less place there is for crappy products. Don't believe me, go to versiontracker.com/macosx and download the average shareware, then go to download.com for windows and do the same. Or, have you ever tried to find a decent ftp client for both Mac and Win. With Mac you are overwhelmed by quality software/shareware: Fetch, Transit, etc, while you stay 2 hours at download.com trying to find only one "decent" win ftp client that doesn't try to make you drawn in an ocean of tiny, strange looking palette button. And this doesn't only apply to ftp clients. What about BB Edit, all the iApps, Graphic Converter, etc. Apple's market share is small: Excellent!!!

Geeks are switching
Hmm,
PDP and VAXEsx were by Digital and not really home computers. By that token most home users do not have SUN Sparcs (solaris), PA-RISC(HP-UX) and IBM p650s(AIX) at home. But they are all Unix Platforms and thier are unix Devlopers that need them. MAC OS X and Linux is a much closer build enviroment for these kinds of apps than Windows is. Of coures Windows is a better build enviroment for Windows programs but their are a lot of other high profile OS out thier that need devolpers besides windows. for us MAX OS X is just fine.

Marketshare & quality
is this an effort to convince yourself of the grand idea of small scale? :-) Yes of course there is a lot of bloat and bad products. The thing is one product could be great for someone and yet I could hate it. Are you trying to convince the world that Fetch is an Apple invention then I am sorry but it is not. I am a consumer and a capitalist and I strongly believe that by having a choice you can evolve faster and better.

Marketshare & quality
If you favor "choice" then it's doubly curious that you seem to lean in favor of a platform with over 90 percent market domination at the desktop.

Be that as it may, the previous poster's point does have economic validity, though he meant to speak of installed base rather than market share. When a third party developer markets his (her) products to a much smaller installed base, the motive is greater to distinguish his product because sheer breadth and strength in numbers cannot give him a margin for error. It only stands to reason.

Moreover, typically products with smaller market share tend to be those of higher quality. There are more Chevys than BMWs, more McDonalds than gourmet Italian restaurants, etc.

Software Updates
The definition of proprietary has nothing to do with the periodic need for software updates which applies to ALL platforms - Windows, Linux, Solaris, and Mac OSX. The irony here, however, is that it is Microsoft which has come to employ Draconian measures to push upgrades on its customers -- not Apple. You speak of OS X 10.1 -- but there are many people who still use OS 9 quite happily and who feel no coercion to upgrade. There are likewise those who are using OS X 10.1.

Are there bugs in OS X? Yes, of course. There is no such thing as bug-free software. Since this applies to ALL platforms, I fail to see your point.

As for a CD-RW drive and one which understands ISO 9660, again, what is your point? The Macintosh platform supports both of these things.

Platform Versus Market
There is a distinction to be made between (1) which PLATFORM developers prefer and (2) which MARKET developers prefer. You argue the latter point; not the former. You might say it boils down to the same thing, but I don't think so.

In any event, you speak of developers as if they are all entrepreneurs. Most developers "inherit" the platforms which their employers require of them. But as for those who can make the choice on their own, Java permits them to choose any platform they wish without sacrificing the large market of Windows. Of course, this is precisely what Microsoft fears and is one reason it seeks to undermine Java (and the concept of platform-independence) at every turn.

Moreover, while the market share and installed base of Wintel is much larger, so is the field of competitors. There is definitely lots of money to be made on Macintosh if people do their homework. Not to mention that so much innovative development these days is not about platforms at all but is about the web and the network. No single company should own this -- though Microsoft is certainly trying to co-opt it all.

Missing the point...
uhmmm... IBM PC??? Isn't that the name that stuck to all intel PC's to this day? Oh, it was the Mac PC, sorry...

Linux was created to run on PC's, specifically the i386 which it was created on by some dude named Linus T.

BSD is Linux based, Linux was created/developed on the PC, Mac is running a PC based OS...

Missing the point...
Just plain wrong.

BSD predates Linux by more than a decade. If anything, Linux was inspired, at least in part, by the BSD Unices.

Linux was originally developed on x86, but has been ported to multiple other architectures since early on. ppcLinux and MkLinux were released in the mid-90's, for example.

Missing the point...
"BSD is Linux based"

You need to take a history lesson, boy.

Linux is (more or less) a hack to UNIX. UNIX was originally created (long before Linux) by AT&T (specifically, Bell Labs), some folks at Berkely eventually made a UNIX distribution that was independent of AT&T's code, they called it "Berkely Software Distribution" (1977).

The idea of GNU was not established until 1985, Linux did not exist in any form until the early 90's.

Missing the point...
I beat you.

Apple didnt just see the Linux movement and want to jump on the badwagon in the mid/late 90's. Apple relesed its own UNIX distro in 1994 (or 1992, im not sure).

Missing the point...
Well well. It WAS 1992, meaning Apple made a whole new OS just months after Linus's newsgroup post.

It's the OS stupid
And I hate to break it to ya, but I look at my WinXP machine's uptime in terms of months as well.

--ct

Marketshare & quality
There is no doubt that the average software on Mac is of a higher quality than on Windows, just like most Apple apps are better than those of MS.

I have been recently working with a group of Windows users, and it turns out none of them knows how to do a screen shot in Win 2k or XP. I did a Google search and find a few site with several dozens of shareware programs, and after spending hours experimenting, they told me none worked properly.

Mac users are really spoiled with high quality free software such as iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, Chess, iChat, Hydra, iTerm, which are so rare in the big wide Windows world.

Most amazingly, Apple is 40x smaller than MS in market cap and probably in human resources, and yet somehow has managed to create a more diverse and better software portfolio (Mac OS X, WebObjects, QuickTime, Darwin Open Source, Darwin Streaming Server, AppleWorks, FileMaker, Keynote, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, Logic, iLife, iChat, iSync, iCal, Mail, Safari, Sherlock, Preview, and many more) than that by the biggest company in human history, for a niche platform 20x smaller than Windows, as well as constantly producing cool hardware systems such as iMac, iBook, PowerBook, G5 Power Mac, Xserve, Xserve RAID, iPod, iSight.

On the OS front, Windows 2005 (or 2006) Longhorn doesn't appear to have much implemented or planed that isn't already a reality in Jaguar since a year ago, and Panther is going to leave Windows in the dust for a long long time.

So you see, a bigger market share and more choices just doesn't help you "evolve faster and better". In this case, not only there are lots of "bloat and bad" Windows products, but also that the best on your platform is simply not good enough for us Mac users.

While Apple is innovating in ever quickening paces in both hardware and hardware, MS is moving slower and slower and becoming increasingly irrelevant to the geek community. It just makes one wonder what is MS doing with its $50 bln cash and tens or hundreds of thousands supposedly smart programmers.

Macs... shucks...
While the Mac is arguably a great operating system... however consider this:

Mac propiertary hardware with Mac OS... naturally it works like a charm nearly 100% of the time with limited configuration variations.

Windows OS/Linux -- gosh hundreds and hundreds of software & hardwave and things that plugs in and goes. This is what makes Windows XP the BEST operating system in the world. How many DIFFERENT computer brands and models is Windows installed on in this world?

There... Windows rocks. Macs are left in the dust bin. Linux will rule the world.

Developers don't use Macs?
Great now 95 per cent of Computer owners will benifit as M$ makes it's products more mac like.

Macs... shucks...
Uh... I don't think so.

Stability and elegance over mediocrity and so-called 'diversity' ANYDAY.

Mac OS X, children.

Class dismissed.

Marketshare & quality
As for your screenshot issues: It's called the Prnt Scrn key or "Print Screen." This age-old technique copies the image to the clipboard. One click and bam! This simplicity should be familiar to those who are Mac partisans.

I for one am a non-partisan observer, and prefer the Linux model and open x86 architecture whenever possible. I find that both Windows and Mac users feel that their respective systems are superior to the opposition. But, what is so compelling that is in one that's not in the other?? Think about your own operating systems 5 or 10 years ago. Compare them to anything of today and you might just appreciate what you and your opposition has and put the bickering aside.

I think that Mac partisans live in a fantasy world and need to face the fact that their strategy is only as good as the people it currently serves. It can't hold the masses, otherwise it would.

My advice to Windows users: Stay humble, you know you're #1. You don't need to stuff it down Mac user's throats.

As for us Linux guys, our time will come. There will soon be a time with Linux will pass Mac on the desktop and Microsoft's technique at eliminating the competition (aka buying them out) will not work with open source.

Marketshare & quality
Let's not confuse quality with pricing. More expensive products obviously provide added value or else they would not have a market. The quality has nothing to do with market share in the examples you cite.

Also, in a smaller market, all a product needs to do to distinguish itself is exist. If anything, there is a greater margin for error since there are fewer alternatives (if any) with a similar feature set.

Gee, how original
First, it is possible that with the overall market for personal computers expanding, that Apple can maintain or lose "market share" as a percentage of overall sales, and still grow its sales and installed base. It helps that the average useful life of a typical Mac is double the average useful life of a typical PC. My PC using friends tend to upgrade every 2-3 years, whereas my Mac using friends upgrade every 4-5 years. I have circa 1998 iMacs at work I intend to leave in service for at least two more years. My home machine is a 3 year old PowerMac Cube I intend to use for at least two more years.

That said, what you suggest is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the incentive to develop for Mac is nil when Apple is at 3% market share (I would say 5% installed base), than Apple will never grow. Market share falls, developers abandon platform, consumers abandon platform due to fewer apps, market share falls, ad nauseum. A vicious cycle. But I believe the cycle can be broken.

Microsoft software has never been particularly good, and leadership has made Microsoft only more complacent (Longhorn in 2006? I suppose they are taking the time to make it more secure...ha ha). While individual PC components are technologically advanced, putting together a computer that works well as a system still remains difficult (unfortunate that the legacy-free PCs that solved many of the compatibility problems did not become popular). The frustrations that the average PC users experience does tend to make them want something better. Unfortunately, they tend to blame Compaq or HP or Toshiba or Dell for the problems they experience, instead of blaming the Wintel architecture as a whole. So if they had a Compaq with problems, they try a Dell, and when they have problems with the Dell, they try an HP. They don't get that Windows is the common denominator. And often, they just don't know that there is an alternative.

If these people had access to a knowledgeable Mac user who could dispel myths about the Mac and give them decent information about the Mac platform, many might try a Mac. This is evidenced by the previous poster that switched all his friends and family. I have done similarly, switching my Mom, brother, and at least 7 other co-workers and friends (I am working on a 8th right now). Some are coming back to the Mac, having abandoned it during the dark days of 1996-98. I believe the returnees represent a large contingent of the switcher population. I am on the frontlines of the Switch campaign, and I can tell you it is happening. I do not hear stories of people abandoning their Macs anymore. I do meet people getting their first Mac, or coming back to the Mac all the time.

So to break the cycle, Mac users need to evangelize the platform. You don't do your friends and relatives any favors leaving them flailing about in the Windows world. Also, Apple needs to market the Mac vigorously and, although Macs are cheaper than ever and in some cases cheaper than comparable PCs (iBook, G5, Xserve), further price reductions would help. Finally, developers need to believe that if you build it, they will come. The platform offers a lot of benefit for developers. Lower dev costs/faster dev cycles (hardware uniformity, object oriented programming). A dedicated, loyal user base. Savvy users with higher than average education and household income that tend to spend more on software and peripherals than the average Windows user (Gartner Study).

Lastly, I differ with your "history". Apple was in trouble in the late 90's, but never as close to "collapse" as the sensationalist press would have you believe at the time. Microsoft's 1997 "cash infusion" ($150M of non-voting shares, since sold at a tidy profit) was a settlement of the Quicktime lawsuit, but also meant to show that Microsoft was dedicated to continuing to develop software for the Mac. While Apple did need Microsoft to show the world its commitment to the platform, they did not need Microsoft's paltry $150M (by comparison to Apple's 1996 $11B revenue) to "keep running".

Platform Versus Market
Yep, you make a good point. Developers (or the companies they work for) may have a technical or aesthetic preference for a particular platform, and that can be completely different than the platform they target for business reasons. (That's the reason I was trying to limit myself to commercial developers, but your restatement is clearer.)

Certainly a developer is almost always limited to the platform choices of their employers as well, but that doesn't change my argument. It almost reinforces it: I've met a lot of really smart devs that don't necessarily have great business savvy. Hey, I'm a well paid developer myself (not the same as smart or good, I know), and I'd be uncomfortable writing up a business plan or hitting up VC guys for money. However, the people getting the money, researching the potential customers, and making high level decisions are very often the MBAs and business guys for whom this 95% market share argument holds the the most weight. They don't care whether you're using MapFileOfView or mmap (or you're using Java and can't memory map files at all); they just have a plan to fulfill and customers to reach. For better or worse, that 95% figure tends to snowball.

Now about the Java thing: I'm not sure why exactly that came up in a thread about switching from Windows to Mac, other than the the fact that Microsoft bashing seems to be fair spam in any thread. Regardless, my personal experience is that Java's cross-platform interoperability capabilities are way oversold. I've spent many hours taking code that worked just fine under a Sun box and trying to get it to run under Linux or Windows, especially when you move into the "dark corners" of graphics and networking. Sure, it's a good idea, but it didn't work worth a darn in early versions of Java, and even now is somewhat questionable.

Still, you're right that Microsoft doesn't like Java, which, like you say, potentially has the power to steal the thunder from one of it's major bread winners: the operating system. On the other hand, I don't see you bashing Apple for making its own proprietary API set for GUI manipulation, etc. and thus undermining the platform independence of Java. Trying to boost your own products at the expense of your competitors is, sadly, good business.

Platform Versus Market
Oops, meant to say "MapViewOfFile", not "MapFileOfView". Time to go to sleep, apparently.

Marketshare & quality
>> As for your screenshot issues: It's called the Prnt Scrn key or "Print Screen." This age-old technique copies the image to the clipboard. One click and bam! This simplicity should be familiar to those who are Mac partisans.

I am not just talking about a whole screen shot, and I don't think anyone having ever used both systems could say with a straight face that Windows is remotely close to Mac inters of simplicity.

In the case of screen shot, Mac OS X comes free with Grab for whole screen or selected region capture with or without timing, in addition to

cmd + shift + 3 to save whole screen
cmd + shift + 4 to save selected region
cmd + shift + 4 and then space to save a selected window

and you can copy to clipboard by pressing the ctrl key with all 3 options.

Superficially, Windows allows you to do many things, but it's constantly in the way for anything slightly sophisticated. In other words, Windows may occasionally have simplicity or power, but usually not both.

My first computer was a Gateway 486 with Windows 3.0, and I have been using and programming Windows for over a decade, so I am speaking with some experience!

>> My advice to Windows users: Stay humble, you know you're #1. You don't need to stuff it down Mac user's throats.

Yes, only in quantity and certainly not in quality. You are definitely in your own league in terms of choices of security flaws and virus. By the way, have you installed the last few dozens of 2003 security patches, or maybe you shouldn't in case they break your system.

Most Mac users do know Windows as well as your average Wintel lemmings and frequently better, but we prefer our minority platform because have seen the light - it just works.

>> As for us Linux guys, our time will come. There will soon be a time with Linux will pass Mac on the desktop and Microsoft's technique at eliminating the competition (aka buying them out) will not work with open source.

You have got it completely wrong, Mr Clueless - it's Linux and Mac against the fat bad Redmond bully, not the other way around. Mac OS X and Linux are both UNIX, and play with each other very well, and both are fighting a war against a common monopoly which is good for our industry and economy.

Apple is working hard to conform to industry standards and help the open source movement, which is why Java, XML, Perl, Python, Ruby, Apache, POSIX, MPEG4, ssh, PDF, etc, are all first class citizens on Mac OS X. In contrast, MS has been constantly trying to introduce incompatibility into Java, JavaScript, XML, and anything they ever touch.

Evaluation Criteria
So it's not about stability, security, performance, elegance, interface, API's, features, etc. It's not even about how many different cpu architectures the OS supports. Instead it's just about the number of brand names which makes an operating system great in your opinion.

We definitely measure greatness in different ways.

As for proprietary Mac hardware, you must mean things like PCI, USB, ATA, Firewire, etc.

I mean this as no insult, but you are simply ignorant about the Macintosh platform.

Definition of Open
What makes the x86 architecture "open" and the PPC architecture "closed"? What is your definition of open? If you mean only that it's the most widely used cpu architecture for desktop systems, well, duh. Of course it is. But I fail to see how this comes to bear on whether something is open or closed.

As for Windows being number one -- in terms of mass market penetration, I think we are all agreed on that. But if you mean by the measures of security, stability, interface, API's, performance, features, etc., I would enjoy reading your argument in this respect.

You seem to think that this whole thing is just about which "mouse trap" we prefer -- Microsoft's or Apple's. You seem utterly unaware that so much more is at stake here. If this were just about two companies which offered their products so consumers could compare and evaluate them on the merits, I would be inclined to take your attitude as well. But Microsoft, as others have noted, is making an effort not merely to build the best mouse trap but to destroy all others. (Under capitalism, these are NOT the same thing.)

At every turn, Microsoft is trying to defeat open standards rather than to embrace them. This includes Java (even as MS hypocritically appropriates the technology into its C# language), and it includes audio/video streaming technology. In contrast, Apple supports Java fully and it likewise supports MPEG-4 (which is an open standard). There are many other examples which others have cited in this thread. Do you not believe in the platform-independence of the web, so that consumers can make their own choices about computer platforms and still commmunicate with other computers via the internet?

If you want "open," I give you Apple.

Marketshare & quality
Bah Humbug. If you don't know wow then keep quite. In windows press alt-print screen for active window or print screen for entire desktop. How complicated is that?

Marketshare & quality
I'm not confusing quality with pricing. The car and restaurant analogy does have limits -- and you are right to point this out. One of those limits is that even the software developer which sets out to build a superior product does not really have the extra costs that an auto manufacturer would have in building a car of the BMW class as opposed to the Chevy class. Granted. But the analogy DOES hold up in respect to the particular point I was trying to illustrate, which is that in a smaller market share it's incumbent upon a company to distinguish its product more. THAT is the point I'm trying to make.

Now you seem to be under the impression that to succeed in smaller markets is a walk in the park, and that all you need do is "exist." This is a myth. (And if it is not, then I should think developers would be moving to the Mac platform in droves so they could have this kind of "success.") There are many competitors for all different classes of products on the Mac platform. Are they as great in number as on the Windows platform -- of course not.

To me, however, the compelling issue is not whether Windows has more choices than the Mac but rather whether the Mac platform does support a healthy number of choices for the consumer. Take word processing for example. There are probably countless offerings on the Windows side for this by every Joe Schmoe developer -- and yet the vast majority uses Microsoft Word anyway (which happens also to be available on the Mac). And take image editing -- though there are surely countless offerings under Windows, the majority (who can afford it) use Adobe Photoshop, which is on the Mac anyway.

I don't use thousands of software packages for each class of software. I use ONE word processor, one or two image editors, one or two text editors, etc. All I care about is that very high quality choices do exist on the Mac. And if you take issue on this point, let me ask you: What good is it to you to know that for a given category of software there might be thousands of other choices? You've made your choice. You are happy with it. We are both agreed that it's important for other choices to exist, but must it be 850 or 1500 or 3000? I say no.

For this reason, this question of software is largely a false issue. Where it DOES come into play is more in vertical markets where software for a particular industry is developed exclusively on Windows (because of its market penetration). On THIS software I would say you have a point. But as for consumer or horizontal shrink wrap software, or for shareware offerings, no.

Marketshare & quality
I forgot to spellcheck. Sorry. :-) Anyway if you follow the directions given in my post above you should be ok.

Evaluation Criteria
How many cpu architectures the OS Supports! I think your the one that is not using your head or has your facts wrong. Mac OS only supports mac hardware! Sorry but Darwin is NOT OS X just the core. Windows however supports multiple chip sets and Intel/AMD supports not just windows but Linux and Unix just two name two more and multiple versions of these operating systems. Mac hardware supports OS X and 1 version of Linux. Virtual PC is not an OS just an emulator. I wrote this response on a G4 using OS X. I just have a problem with narrow minded computer users who love a product just because someone else says its great. Think for yourself and get your facts straight you will be better off.

Marketshare & quality
Ok less of a choice is not better its a just less of a choice and to do a screen shot in windows all I have to do is hit the prtscn button which is built in to windows and on the keyboard. In OSX I have to have a seperate program. As far as version tracker have you people even looked at the reviews on half the software out there? They are not what you make them out to be. So if your a network engineer and have to work on diagrams all day what do you use? Not Visio, only the best diagram program out there and the standard. Omnigraphle is not what they say...sorry. "typed on G4 OSX" I just don't like crazed apple users who don't look at the facts and only look at the hype Steve Jobs puts out. However brilliant he may be. I can go on forever about how OS X has great purpose as well as Windows, Solaris, BSD and so on.. BTW my personal experience getting an FTP program is that getting one for OSX was very painfull and fustrating and for Win very simple and FREE.

Definition of Open
Its amazing that just a few weeks ago Steve Jobs uses the word API and now its the big Apple buzz work and most people don't even know what it means or what they do! Apple uses many of the same business tactics as MS except MS has the cash to get away with it. How many products has Apple bought up or stole? Can anyone say Watson! Humm..Logic...I have seen a lot of programs and small companies take a beating by Apples tactics. The only differece is MS is larger than Apple. Oh last time I checked if I wanted to I could boot any and I mean ANY version of Windows on intel/amd. It seems as though on "new" Apples I can no longer boot OS 9! Open you say! Have a nice day. Oh and Apple is still a "PC" not a GOD

proprietary mac software?
Serial port! Missing on the mac and my bigest complaint. I am a network engineer and I am not sure if you know it or not but most network gear does not have USB it has serial. So now the problem is to get Sun, Cisco!, Nokia, 3COM, Foundry, Juniper and so on to stop using serial and start using USB so the 100 thousand + network engineers in this country can start using Macs. Oh and those usb to serial adaptors don't work so well under OS X. I have tried and would love to use my powerbook at work instead of just typing these messages.

Marketshare & quality
>> In OSX I have to have a seperate program.

Oh, no, you don't. Since you don't read before opening your mouth, I will have to copy and paste my earlier comment in this regard:

"In the case of screen shot, Mac OS X comes free with Grab for whole screen or selected region capture with or without timing, in addition to

cmd + shift + 3 to save whole screen
cmd + shift + 4 to save selected region
cmd + shift + 4 and then space to save a selected window

and you can copy to clipboard by pressing the ctrl key with all 3 options."

>> BTW my personal experience getting an FTP program is that getting one for OSX was very painfull and fustrating and for Win very simple and FREE.

I am not sure what the hell you mean. Finder itself can mount a remote ftp server as a local disk on your file system if you either click Go - Connect to Server or type cmd + k in Finder or click a URL such as ftp://my.server.com/ from a browser or desktop, and ftp client and server are both into OS X and available from a Unix shell. There is also the excellent shareware ftp client such as Fetch and others.

Missing the point...
Apologies and retractions are in order...

Thank you for calling me boy, being 38 that is a compliment. :)

Missing the point...
So did BSD run on the IBM PC first? That's where it's popularity grew and flourished.

According to you guys it didn't appear on the Mac for some 25 years after it's initial development.

Evaluation Criteria
I am not sure the number of chip sets are even relevant to the quality of an OS, but eMac, iMac, iBook, PowerBook, G4 PowerMac, G5 Power Mac, Xserve are all using different chip sets, which are supported by OS X.

On the Wintel side, most box makers use chip sets from Intel, Via, ATi or nVidia based on x86 CPU architecture.

>> I just have a problem with narrow minded computer users who love a product just because someone else says its great.

No, most Mac users prefer their platform based on real world experiences, and many including myself have been long time Windows and Unix user too.

Definition of Open
>> How many products has Apple bought up or stole?

Apple stealing? You have got to be really careful with your accusation. OK, Apple has bought a few products like Logic, but that's not a crime and they usually make tons improvement and often reduce prices afterwards. I am not going to say anything about MS stealing or copying other people's idea, but DOS is bough (for $50k), so were IE, Visual Basic, and some may say that Windows / Media Player / C# is a Mac OS / QuickTime / Java rip off.

>> Can anyone say Watson!

No, Apple Sherlock has implemented the browser-independent Web search long before anything else including Watson.

>> Oh last time I checked if I wanted to I could boot any and I mean ANY version of Windows on intel/amd.

I am not so sure about that, knowing that new versions of MS Word often don't properly read files created by earlier ones. But even if it's true, so what? Apple has never promised that all their hardware will keep working with older software. Most people understand that OS 9 and X are completely different systems, and a little disruption is sometimes inevitable in order to make progress.

Marketshare & quality
It's obviously not good enough. Why do you think there are many dozens of screen capture programs for Windows?

This is just a trivial example, but there are so many other things that are just natural on OS X but either impossible or very clumsy on Windows without installing extra software or constantly fighting with the system. And stupid design mistakes like having to shut down Windows by clicking the Start menu just put me off.

Marketshare & quality
It has been my experience that it's often mac users that have to install a shareware for cron jobs, have to install shareware for erasing files instead of using rm -P. Don't throw stones in glas houses.

One to One
OS X supports the PowerPC chip family (which consists of multiple chip architectures developed and sold by IBM and Motorola). Its kernel employs hardware abstraction which does support the Intel family as well, but OS X itself runs only under the PPC family. Windows, in contrast, runs only under the Intel Pentium/Itanium family (AMD is a me-too chip set which is x86-compatible and which also supports instructions of the Pentium and Itanium and thus is part of the same basic architecture).

Now in light of the foregoing, how is it that Windows supports more chip architectures than OS X? It supports more BRANDS, yes -- but not more actual architectures.

In the early days of Windows NT, multiple chip FAMILIES were indeed supported -- such as not only Intel's Pentium but also DEC's Alpha. However, this came about because of a threatened lawsuit by DEC against Microsoft over the "Mica code" which Microsoft appropriated from DEC to build NT. (This is what Microsoft does best -- copy ideas from others and not originate much of anything on its own.) But Alpha support was dropped after Windows NT 4.0 -- and now only the P4 and Itanium family is supported (and whatever the particular brand name, the architecture is fundamentally the same).

So if we are talking about the present day, I see no evidence that Windows supports more hardware than OS X.

Now Linux is another matter entirely -- you are right about that; but then your beloved Microsoft is doing its best to defeat Linux too.

Products one thing; standards and protocols another
I'm afraid you completely missed my point. I never said (or even implied) that Apple has invented ALL the technology it uses. Can you think of a single company which can make that claim? I don't fault Microsoft for occasionally making the most of technology developed elsewhere, for as you point out Apple has from time to time done this as well. ALL companies have done this. My problem with Microsoft, which I thought was clear enough in my post above, is that it seeks not merely to acquire competing products, but to destroy them, and indeed not only to destroy them, but also to undermine and ultimately destroy the open standards and protocols on which they are based. Do you not understand the difference? Is this not cause for alarm in your mind, that a single company would be the keeper of all standards?

It's one thing, for example, to buy or use a browser technology not originally your own; it's quite another to seek to co-opt open standards on the web and to defeat them. An increasing number of web developers focus only on IE and disregard compliance with open standards which would enable support of multiple browsers. Do you think this is healthy for the industry? Do you want to see a world in which the only way you can reliably access the web is to use the software from a single company -- namely Microsoft? Do you care nothing about consumer choice and having different products to choose from?

Aside from that, while Apple has bought a few products (such as that which eventually became iTunes), it does originate and innovate many technologies on its own. Microsoft can hardly innovate its own logo. Virtually everything MS sells originated elsewhere. So while it's one thing to buy or appropriate a few technologies, how about almost ALL of them? Here's only a partial list in no particular order:

DOS
Windows NT
Powerpoint
Internet Explorer
C# Language
SQL Server
FoxPro
Visio
Hotmail

This is only a few that leap to mind. And if it had not been for the Justice Dept, Microsoft would have owned Quicken as well. This is an embarrassing record for the largest software company in the world. Just what can it develop on its own? Microsoft Word and Excel?

Platform Versus Market
You raise interesting points which are worthy of a thoughtful response. I'm under the weather today, but a response is forthcoming, if you can bear with me.

Marketshare & quality
I'm unclear on what you are trying to communicate here.

To my own little bit of research, OS X has crontab built-in (and it works in the unix familiar way) and OS X support the rm -P command (with the optional -P argument).

Missing the point...
A/UX was first released in 1988, version 3.0 came out in '92

Why switch to Mac?
There is a difference between market share as in current quarterly sales and installed base.

The current low market share is mainly Apple's own doing. Many Mac users are finding their old Macs useful and up to the job. There is less of a need for constant hardware upgrading unlike the PC.

The Pentiums' frequent increase of clock speed certainly makes you feel that your PC is old and slow very quickly.

In that sense, owning a Mac is cheaper simply because it remains useful longer.

Why are all people who perfer Macs defensive?
Steve isn't saying that Macs are better. But somehow the commentary has turn to that... Then again they don't have the amount of the population on their side anyways.. Maybe thats why?

Twist of Irony
Gee, why do all people who prefer Wintel generalize? (Said with a smile and a wink.)

Processor loyalty as religion
Just because a bunch of Mac loyalists massed up in this forum does not change the facts of the mass market. I know a few people who switched from Macs to PC's because they could no longer stand being marginalized. (Nobody mentioned people switching that way, and they do.)

I am not a machine loyalist.
Like most people I have a love/hate for Windows.
It is great that Macs inspire a sort of religious machine loyalist following, but PC genre owners and users don't need a machine religion.

If Apple introduced a Mac that runs at 20 Gigahertz right now, massively faster than any PC, you'd see that processor loyalty is NOT holding people back.

Any "loyalty" I had to the Beta VCR format,
no matter how technically superior it was, would have been a waste of time. VHS flooded the market.

There are already plans to phase out DVD technology in the marketplace, perhaps waiting until HDTV is firmly entrenched.

Until HDTV really takes over in the market, it is a "superior technology" that is in search of a following, despite the government mandate.

I see loyalty to any technology when it becomes like a religion, to be funny, as amusing as the way that men are actually loyal to their socks. Men actually resist throwing them away when they are holey.

The original subject here was not which machine is better FOR DEVELOPERS.

Blind Leads the Blind
Ah, once again another tired old stereotype. Why is it that when someone favors the Macintosh (and OS X in particular), it's based on religious fervor, while in contrast those who favor the Wintel platform are motivated only by an impartial review of the objective facts?

You might consider that even to posit such a thing is ITSELF an example of a "religious" attitude. In other words, people who see the proponents of the "other" platform as rabid zealots are often guilty of the very same religious attitude for which they criticize others. Besides, if indeed Mac users -- in all their religious zeal -- demonize Microsoft, and if they think Apple walks on water, then how do you account for the fact that the majority of them buy or use such products as MS-Office and IE?

Moreover, as I scan the messages in this discussion forum, I see no evidence that those who lean toward Macs are less inclined to supply hard data for their positions or that those who favor Wintel exhibit any less fervor about their own preferences. Take this statement as an example (copied from elsewhere in this forum):

"Windows rocks. Macs are left in the dust bin. Linux will rule the world."

You tell me -- is this the tenor of a rational individual who simply evaluates his computer in an unbiased way based on its specs alone?

The fact is that the vast majority of Windows users have never even TRIED a Mac and thus are in no position to know one way or the other. In contrast, the vast majority of Mac users have also used Windows because it is omnipresent in the business world -- so the typical Mac user has a basis of comparison that the typical Windows user does not have. You can call this religion if you like, but in my mind it actually makes the Mac user's preference all the more credible, because it's based less upon hearsay than upon actual experience with both platforms.

By the way, while you suggest that if only the Mac were demonstrably superior (such as with 20 ghz) the Wintel folks would switch in droves, you then proceed to affirm that despite the clear superiority of Betamax you would remain with VHS regardless -- meaning that for you quality was not the issue. So which is it?

Good Enough
Good enough is always going to beat quality in the mass market. Good enough appeals to many more customers, generally those who aren't computer savvy and don't necessarily need/want sophisticated hardware/applications, as good enough usually translates into less expensive. Less expensive also means a bigger market share which begets lower prices and hence even more market. It is perfectly understandable why developers especially like the Mac for their personal use (and are willing to pay for it) and why most users could not care less about switching to the Mac. The five reasons listed here are mostly right on the mark.

Marketshare & quality
My argument was that just as the screenshot capability is in Windows by default on the keyboard with one or two keystrokes, and is easy and fast, many users don't think or know about this option. Instead many users go out on the Internet to search for a shareware to do just that.

On OS X you have on every board users that shout "hey, what a nifty shareware I found that did this" but then when you look it's just a fancy GUI of a system command, the wheel invented again or that by repackaging it becomes a more elegant method for the user. This behaviour is platform independant.

Why do you think expose came about. Users found that the window manager was not up to par and got a shareware for virtual screens. That was my reason for "don't throw stones in glass houses".

My mentioning the cron and rm was just a way to visualize for you how a system command that is built in sometimes needs a shareware for the user to see it. In windows you have the command prompt that can be used for many purposes but is often overlooked.

I have now proved that your statement about how windows is not as easy as os x didn't hold. In fact what I have shown is that if you use a system then you will know more about it. The label "it just works" is wrong. Having a GUI with windows and drag and drop does not equal that you by first glance know all capabilities of a system. And just to stop your next comment, no os x is not easier than windows it't just different.

Not Good Enough
What's good enough? Whether something is good enough or not is constantly changing depending what else is available on the market.

Windows might be good enough a few years ago, but not for now or the near future for at least three reasons. Firstly, Mac OS X offers a far superior user experiences with tons of best-of-breed free software than the poor old Windows. Secondly, Linux is rapidly closing the usability gap from Windows and is almost free. And thirdly, Mac OS X and Linux are miles ahead of Windows in stability and security with virtually no virus, and both platforms play fairly with each other by supporting industry standards and open source projects.

So it's time to stop compromising your quality of life and start searching for a better future.

The Wintel Lemmings
The classic strategy of the Wintel crowd has three defenses, which runs like a clock whenever they begin to lose a real argument:

(1) The MHz myth
They claim that their CPU is faster than ours, although most people only use 10% of their CPU power at 99% of the time. Unfortunately, the G5 has just destroyed that bragging right for them.

(2) The majority myth
They are the majority race and live in the land of cheap and plenty. While they certainly have plenty of virus and low quality products, our minority platform actually provides more best-of-class technologies, often years before the majority jumping on the bandwagon: USB, FireWire, AirPort, iPod, iTunes Music Store.

There is something odd about the lemming mentality of the Wintel crowd. Most consumers make purchase decision based on style, taste, color, quality and price, not market share, otherwise the whole world would eventually shop at the same store, eat at the same restaurant, wear the same cloth, drive the same car, fly the same airline, which would make a boring and stupid world indeed. But when debating about computers, most Windows users behave no more intelligently then lemmings.

Remember a PC means a personal computer - not a crowd computer, so please choose your platform by personal preference and quality rather than market share.

The sad truth is that most Windows users is under the illusion that their bigger market share gives then cheaper prices, which is not true. By sticking to Windows, your are helping a convicted monopoly to destroy out industry and economy, which is bad news for everyone and why we have to pay over $500 for the bloated and slow MS Office just to do simple things like writing or tax calculation. In contrast, it's a bargain to get a stylish and powerful computer like eMac for $799 that also comes with tons of free software like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iChat AV, iCal, iSync, AppleWorks, Chess, Project Builder, Interface Builder and a long list of other programs and games.

(3) The religious myth
This is the most stupid argument against Mac users. In fact, most of us prefer Mac for very good reasons: personal preference, productivity, quality, style, etc. We are no zealous than Windows or Linux users, and usually have a fairly good knowledge of Mac as well as other platforms, often better than your average Wintel users because we have the benefit of multi-platform experiences.

The Wintel Lemmings
Your second and third points are valid, but your first one should come with qualifications. There are some users who DO need the extra speed which some Wintel boxes have provided -- namely high-end gamers. Don't get me wrong, the clock-speed myth is valid to a degree, which is to say that when comparing two different architectures, the clock speed ALONE is not determinative or indicative of which cpu is faster overall. But I think in the last two years at least, Wintel boxes have generally been faster for integer performance than their Mac counterparts.

Still, your point is well taken for the majority of users. Those who use computers mostly for e-mail, word processing, web browsing (over a dial-up connection), personal finance, etc., are not taxing the cpu to anywhere NEAR its capacity, and thus the clock-speed thing is mostly a marketing lure and has little real-world impact on them.

Good Enough
Your point is predicated on the assumption that Steve Jobs' goal is to beat Microsoft at the market share game. And while Jobs certainly wants to expand the Mac's market share, of course, Apple is not about market domination. Rather it is about offering cutting edge, high-quality products to its customers.

Not every product has to be the market leader in order to be considered a success. Not every restaurant has to be McDonalds. BMW doesn't have to be Honda. The New York Times doesn't have to be USA Today.

And THIS is what most people don't understand. Oh sure, people understand this in respect to OTHER industries, but somehow when it comes to computers, people think in binary terms (pardon the pun) -- to wit: either its Wintel or the very business model is in jeopardy. And this is utter rubbish. There's money to be made in them thar 2.8 percent market-share hills. (Would you not like to have a corporation with a 2.8 percent share of the world market of computers?)

Another misconception is that overall market share is the only figure one need consider. Yes, Apple's overall market share is low; but it has very high market share numbers in key niches in the industry. This makes a big difference in the sustainability of Apple as a viable company. Raw installed base numbers are also pertinent.

As for price, Apple has come WAY down in price and is very competitive now. I invite you to go to Apple's web site and price compare comparable Dell and Apple systems. Now Apple will NEVER be able to equal the very lowest price of the assemblers who do not bear the huge R&D costs of developing their own operating system. But Apple is definitely price competitive today.

Finally, if the rationale about price and being just "good enough" is indeed accurate, then Wintel had best watch out for Lindows which sells at Walmart for $299 and $499. Lindows is catching up in the "good enough" race.

Distortion field up - "the Mhz myth"
If it is one song that has been out of tune it's the Mhz myth. I barf every time a mac user claims that the 1Ghz G4 is faster the a 3Ghz P4. You are so out in the fantasy land that it is not funny. Happy happy joy joy.

Now with the G5 you are on par or even ahead a few months. Great. Just stop inventing truths about the G4.

Distortion field up - "the Mhz myth"
The clock-speed myth IS valid, but only to a degree. And for floating point performance, the best G4 chips have generally been on a par with the much higher clocked Pentiums. Still, I find that the Pentiums have -- in the last two years -- been generally faster for integer performance. But with the G5 it's a whole new ball game.

Blind Leads the Blind
Most of Windows users don't care about computers at all and more so when talking about OSes. All that is relevant in buying computer for them is price alone. If someone is selling the same powerful PC for less, then they buy there. Professionals and hobbyists mentality in regard to this is different. Their decision on what to buy involves more factors. They care what they are buying, not what price they are paying.

What is funny to me is some of these pros and hobbyists are evangelizing technologies to common public, who can't care less about this and then get angry at this public.

Price - the ONLY Criterion?
I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure it's true. First, you seem to be talking only about the consumer (and non-corporate) market. Second, if price were the only criterion, as you suggest, then the $299 Lindows computers should be flying off the shelves of Walmart and Dell's sales should now be lagging. Third, the whole clock-speed thing should never have been an issue -- at least not for THIS part of the price-conscious market.

But for a moment let's suppose what you say is true. Why is it only with computers that price is the average person's sole concern? In my experience, people use a variety of criteria even for things like toilet tissue. It's seldom about price alone. Price is a factor, of course, but other considerations come into play.

People don't always buy the cheapest televisions or telephones. People don't always buy the cheapest cars. People don't buy the cheapest books. I could go on and on. Thus I think there is something else at work here than just price. (Besides, in the Wintel world, if it were only about price, then Dell would have long ago been eclipsed by eMachines -- not to mention that Compaq, HP, and IBM would have long ago been left out of the consumer market entirely.)

Distortion field up - "the Mhz myth"
To be honest, most Mac users would admit that G4 is generally slower than P4 with 3x the clock speed. However, for floating point calculation using Altivec, the G4 is much faster than the P4. Dr Craig Hunter of NASA has published several benchmarks based on the Jet3D program which show the same G4 Power Mac performs 10x to 11x faster when Altivec is used.

G4 also has other advantages such as a more efficient CPU architecture and much lower energy consumption.

Not Good Enough
People are used to windows and it's bugs. I hear my friends complaining about "oh I hate my computer" or "my computer's being a bitch, let me restart" and then when I say "well that doesn't really happen to me; I have a mac" they say "well I don't like macs"

Most pc users have NEVER used Mac OS X. They typically say "I haven't used one in years but I don't like them"... at this I must, of course, explain how I hate the old OS but I love the new one.

Bottom line... people are lazy. People are cheap. People are used to the crap they get from windows on a daily basis. Am I wrong?

Developers
> For developers, the PC is the preferred platform, with or without Windows

Either I don't understand what Steve is trying to say here, or he's talking rubbish.

Pretty much anyone who's developed using Cocoa prefers it to anything development environment / API that Microsoft have ever made. So he must mean that people prefer to make money, which they can better achieve by developing for the PC. But he says, "with or without Windows", so he can't mean that. What gives?!

Evaluation Criteria
Hate to split hairs here, but currently there are multiple versions of Linux/Unix you can run on the Mac PPC processors. Currently not only can you run Apple's OS X, OS 9 & Darwin but you can successfully compile and run:
FreeBSD (www.freebsd.org/platforms/ppc.html)
NetBSD (www.netbsd.org/ports/macppc/)
Open BSD (www.openbsd.org/macppc.html)
Slackware Linux (slackintosh.expliots.org)
GNU/Linux (www.gnu.org)
Yellow Dog Linux (www.yellowdoglinux.com)
Mandrake Linux (www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ppc.php3)
Gentoo Linux (www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-ppc-install.xml)

For more info on the possibilities of Linux on a Mac try:
www.linuxppc.org
or
www.maconlinux.org

And that's just off the top of my head! (Okay okay, maybe not all the link addresses) Anyway, please please make sure you are edjumacated before trying to pass off some clearly incorrect information on the capabilities of the Mac platform. As you can clearly see, there is more than one Linux distro for all the Mac Heads out there.

Oh yeah...
Think Different.

Good Enough for Lazy People
Bingo! Yes, most people are lazy and cheap - which is the very reason that "good enough" Windows is always going to win out over Macintosh regardless how much the Mac fanatics rant. Learning a new OS and new applications takes time and effort - no matter how sophisticated the GUI is - and this translates into real (and perceived) cost. Being different also has a cost. OS X simply isn't compelling enough quality to overcome this resistance. I suspect that Apple's "switch" ads are primarily aimed at former Mac users who abandoned the company for a while but now have a product worth returning to.

proprietary mac software?
Ever thought about trying one of those USB to serial adapters?

Developers
Mac OS X and Panther is just not considered a serious development platform for most developers. The development options may be there with Java, Cocoa and the like, but small market-share demand for Mac OS X-based applications in contrast with Windows and Linux-based PCs will keep developers focused on building Windows and Linux-based applications. Given this, they will likely use Windows and Linux-based and optimized development (i.e., IDE, UML) and deployment tools. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Apple's behavior in the past initially drove developers away. Now, Apple's challenge to grab developer mind share is even greater than it was years ago.

Developers
I don't know what planet you are on, but developers are flocking in droves to OS X -- and this includes especially devotees of Linux. Have you not been reading O'Reilly's own reports of Linux developer conferences in which he speak of how over 50 percent are now toting PowerBooks?

Repeat after me: the Macintosh is a Unix workstation. (Yes, albeit of the BSD branch and a variant thereto -- but it has more right to the Unix name than Linux does.) Even if OS X included nothing more than Darwin and X11, it would have as many development resources available to it as any other Unix variant. So how, exactly, do you figure that OS X is actually then the poorer for Apple's choice to offer a SECOND windowing system/manager (namely Aqua) and an additional development environment (Cocoa)?

Your logic escapes me.

Developers
retracted.

Developers
As far as I can tell, Gartner measures only the markets developers target and not what platforms they use *themselves* for developing code. These are not necessarily the same thing. Windows is the 800-pound gorilla, and because of its market dominance, you might say ipso facto that it has become the preferred development platform. But I say at most it is the preferred developer MARKET -- not necessarily platform.

Besides which Gartner takes snapshots of the industry which may or may not betoken trends. Between OS X and Linux I think the earth is shaking in this industry (and I speak again in regard to what platforms developers tend to prefer). OS X supports many IDE's of many languages, and you can program not only in Objective-C but also C++ if you are so inclined. Yes, there is Java as well which allows you to use one platform for development without sacrificing other platforms as your market -- so the developer can have his cake and eat it too (in that case). New compilers are offered on OS X all the time. The number of languages is rich and includes Perl, PHP, Ruby, Python, C++, Objective-C, Java, Javascript, and many others -- each with its own strengths and applications.

One thing you fail to consider is how YOUNG this platform is. It's still just under three years old. What was the development picture on other platforms after so short a time? Oh, and as for your toy remark, that's not even worthy of refutation. Apparently you have a low opinion of the Linux development community and its judgment. If the Linux crowd wanted a "toy," it could as easily slap Lindows onto an Intel-based laptop and be done with it.

Missing the point...
Most of you are missing the point, and are even being quite defensive. This Weblog simply points out the possible reasons why the switch to Mac isn't going well. I am not a Mac basher, as you seem to be thinking through your very defensive feedback.

I personally just happen to be the most comfortable and productive with a PC; that doesn't mean I'm anti-Mac or even anti-open source. Quite the contrary, I believe the Mac will be successful on a limited scale, and I am an avid supporter for open source, especially as it influences and grows within the Java developer community and, perhaps, Sun.

Oh, please...
Hate to break it to you, but the PowerMac G5s use the PPC 970 chip, developed by guess who... Intel. And oh, what operating system do the G5s use? Oh that's right... OS X. So, if I harken back to my high scool logic course, that would therefore mean that the dream HAS become a reality and that OS X is running on Intel. Now OS X on AMD... that's a different story.

Developers
My previous feedback/comment has been retracted out of my respect for O'Reilly, in general. Also, let's agree to disagree.

A Modest Suggestion for You
Allow me to suggest gently that you are taking this way too much to heart. For instance, you say -- elsewhere in regard to another post of yours -- that you retracted it "out of respect for O'Reilly." I saw no disrespect in your post; and I think Tim O'Reilly would tell you these forums are here precisely to air different points of view. Now, sure, if one engages in a personal attack or uses obscene language or resorts to name-calling or bullying or other such juvenile behavior, that's different. But I saw none of that from you, (nor do I feel I'm guilty of such behavior either). I have simply taken issue with your point of view, that's all. I may be largely correct or I may be largely mistaken -- such is the nature of discussion forums like this.

Also, let me suggest that to defend something is not the same thing as to be "defensive." I have no illusions about Apple; it has made quite a number of missteps over the years -- some significant; and I don't think Steve Jobs walks on water. I just found it ironic that at the very time when Apple is getting its act together vis-a-vis developers, and when more developers are embracing the Mac than ever before, (since it is in fact a Unix-based OS), this would be the time for people to observe that it's not a good development platform (or that Windows is the better one).

I think we are all agreed that Windows has the dominant market share. We have known that from the get-go, and I'm sure Jobs was under no illusions that the switch campaign would make a significant dent in that. I think he just hoped (and in fact still hopes) for a change of a few percentage points in Apple's favor -- and this is a modest goal after all -- and while the economy is troubled, I think he hopes Apple's aggressive marketing will at least stem any tides.

I think also it's premature to do a post-mortem on the Switch campaign because I think it has planted some seeds and increased the Mac's mindshare greatly. Once the economy turns around, we shall see. (And who's to say but that Apple would be much worse of yet were it not for this campaign.)

In any event, I suppose you see yourself as taking the high road here; but this is a discussion forum in which we are each to dive in and lay our views on the table. So long as we do that within the bounds of civility, I see no need for you or anyone else to retract anything. Moreover, I fail to see that any "reflexive" defense of the Mac platform is any more "defensive" per se than a reflexive defense of any other computing platform. I have used DOS, Windows 3.1.1, Windows NT, Windows 2000, AIX, SCO, and a few other operating systems. For me it's not a religion; but this doesn't mean I don't have opinions. Fair enough?

Jeff Mincey

Developers
>> Mac OS X and Panther is just not considered a serious development platform for most developers.

Steve, you continue to make silly remarks out of unbelievable ignorance. Have you not noticed that many O'Reilly editors including Tim O'Reilly himself as well James Duncan Davidson and Daniel Steinberg are all Mac OS X fans? How do you explain that 50% laptops at the recent JavaOne and OSCon were PowerBooks as reported in several weblogs?

>> The development options may be there with Java, Cocoa and the like, but small market-share demand for Mac OS X-based applications in contrast with Windows and Linux-based PCs will keep developers focused on building Windows and Linux-based applications.

According to Apple, there are 7 millions OS X users, which is not a small number in any sense and probably far greater than the number of Linux users. If you are a developer with some vision, you would look beyond the current market share. Please remember that Mac OS X is still an infant, give it a chance and stop spreading the market share FUD.

As the largest UNIX vendor, Apple is undisputedly the most innovative and imaginative in the computer industry except perhaps IBM. A quick survey of Slashdot or Ars Technica would confirm that the geek community are much more interested in Apple than MS or any Wintel box maker, and the alpha geeks will bring more and more average users to the Mac platform.

>> Apple's behavior in the past initially drove developers away.

What exactly are you talking about? Apple may have made mistakes in the past, but they are have been working very hard recently to make OS X the best platform for developers by supporting and adopting open source and industry standards, and provide all of their great programming tools for free. In contrast, MS charges over $3000 for Visual Studio .NET and routinely abuses its monopoly power to trap developers into its own proprietary platform

Geeks are switching
Your average PC buyer has never heard of any of these individuals and frankly could not care less about what "alpha geeks" are switching to. In fact, that is likely to be a real negative selling point ("oh oh - this is a 'geek' computer, that means it is too complex for me ..."). There is a small group of consumers where "follow the alpha geeks" matters and presumably this is what Apple is marketing to. Whether that in turn helps to generate a bigger market share is yet to be seen.

Lies and statistics
No doubt the vast majority of the 96% PCs are used virtually as consoles in tele-sales call centres and suchlike - running just a single application all day long.

How many people in your office had a voice in deciding which computer and/or OS they will use for their work ? Probably none. In a corporate environment, usually one person makes the purchase decision for 1000s of desktops. I'm guessing that probably 70-80% of all PCs are used in an office environment where the purchase decision has been dictated by the company.

The statistic I'd be more interested in hearing is how many people - *when given the choice* -choose a Mac. I'm willing to bet it's a damned sight more than 3% !!

Lies and statistics
And now back to the reality.

Upgradeability
It's simple: I like to be in control of what I own. Let me explain:

A) I buy a PC. Technology evolves. It gets old.
I upgrade the bits that matter as I need to, keeping it current without having to replace the whole thing.

B) I buy a Mac. Technology evolves. It gets old.
I have to throw it away wholesale because the next OS upgrade doesn't support it anymore.

Get it? I don't like having an expiry date on my money. With Wintel, I went from a machine that was top of the line two years ago to one that is top of the line today for only £800. Could I have upgraded a G4 to a G5 for that much?

No, I Didn't think so.

I'd gladly buy a Mac if I could really call it mine. But to me buying a Mac is like buying a toaster. Once it's old and starts burning your bread, you have to chuck it out and get a new one.

That, and the fact that I'm also a high end gamer and, as said many times above, the gaming industry simply doesn't lie Mac's way.

Upgradeability
I find this a most curious reason not to switch to the Mac. First, in my experience, substantiated by articles I have read, the average Macintosh life cycle is two to three years longer than that of the average Wintel box life cycle. Second, as a long-time user of innumerable versions of Windows, I find that the support of older hardware is actually much WORSE on the part of Microsoft than on the part of Apple. Of course, all companies must move forward at some point, and it's a judgment call as to how one balances the need for backwards compatibility against the need for new, cutting-edge development. But, again, in my experience it has been Apple which is friendlier to older hardware.

Remember, Apple has much more control over the hardware environment of its operating systems than Microsoft could ever dream about; so it only stands to reason that backwards compatibility would be greater for the former than the latter. Indeed, Apple has even switched chip architectures -- from CISC to RISC -- and in so doing its OS (at the time) could still run on both. Thus I find your argument unconvincing.

Now I can appreciate that with an Intel box you can swap out such things as the power supply or perhaps (if your motherboard permits) you can add a second cpu to a socket (provided there is socket compatibility). But I hope you are not under the impression that your need for this hardware flexibility is typical of the average consumer -- not to mention that the Mac is upgradeable to a degree, and if you are so inclined you can swap out DIMM's and hard drives and PCI cards to your heart's content.

Lies and statistics
Excuse me, but I think this individual has a point. The average employee in corporate America does not make purchase decisions. This is done by IT people whom Microsoft has heavily targeted for its marketing. If left to their own devices, I'm sure a very small percentage of these average employees would choose another computer for their desk. Now why is this such an outlandish prospect in your eyes?

You are not under the impression, are you, that Apple has NO sales of the Macintosh platform to consumers? Well, if you acknowledge that some people, albeit a very small percentage, choose the Mac, it only stands to reason that if they were given the choice to exercise that pereference at their workplace, a good number of them would likewise choose Macs there as well.

The point being that the market share figures (and even installed base figures) don't fully reflect a choice which maps to a one-to-one ratio with each computer sold. And this is important when evaluating the success or failure of Apple's switch campaign. At present Apple is not even competing in the corporate market in the first place, and yet the market share figures of the corporate market come into play -- thus distorting the true picture.

Lies and statistics
It's a pipe dream. There are good reasons as to why you try hold a more standardised approach to your machine park. Take the thread starters example of a call center. You have the base install build for the call center, then you throw in an Imac into the mix. Will not work! With Panther we get better active directory support but again you add platform choice were it is needed not everywhere because that would turn ugly fast.

Mac as Good Network Client
What's a pipe dream? Assuming you are the same "anonymous" who posted before, you seem to be shifting from one topic to the other -- while acting as if it's all the same one. My original point was only to echo the sentiments of a previous poster that the market share figures for the Macintosh vis-a-vis Windows do not necessarily map to consumer choice on a one-to-one basis. Now if you want to shift to another topic, that's fine, of course, but it's hard to address a moving target.

Now as for the impact on a help desk support center of a multi-platform environment, I have seen no data which suggests that per-unit call volumes are higher on the Mac platform than on Windows. Indeed, if anything, I would speculate they are actually lower. Be that as it may, however, the vast majority of a user's time -- especially in a corporate environment -- is spent within the applications, be it MS-Office, e-mail applications, database managers, etc. It is HERE where the help desk comes most into play -- and I see no reason to think that Microsoft Excel on the Mac would be any more problematic than Excel on Windows. They have the same command vocabulary, menu layout, document format, etc.

As for how well the Macs can operate on the network, now that the Mac OS is a Unix variant, the Macintosh can play very well as a network citizen and use the same networks as any Windows computer can -- in some ways, in fact, it is more versatile and supports natively more network protocols and remote file systems. It's only if Microsoft succeeds in co-opting and defeating all open standards on the web (which would also affect intranets) that a problem would develop, and THEN a single company will be the keeper of all standards, and access to the vast resources of the internet will be controlled only by it.

Is this what you would like to see?

I should thnk that even the advocates of the Wintel platform would prefer networks, LANs, WANs, and an internet and web which is completely platform-independent so that no matter which computer you prefer to use, you can communicate with all others. This is what consumer choice is all about.

If everyone feeds at the Microsoft trough, soon it will be the ONLY trough and there will be no choice for anyone to "buy that better mouse trap" from the entrepreneur with a better idea. Instead Microsoft will control everything.

This is why I find it so alarming that people delude themselves into thinking this is only about which platform one prefers. No, it is not. So much more is at stake here.

Upgradeability
The notion that Mac is not upgradable is totally stupid. Even with iMac or iBook, you can add more RAM, replace the hard drive, over clock or swap the processor, let alone the more expandable Power Mac.

However, most Mac users don't need to waste their time and money to keep updating the hardware, because Macs are normally ahead of Wintel PCs and last much longer.

I bought my iMac for £900 about 4 years ago, which came with USB, FireWire, 802.11b Wireless, Ethernet and DVD, when my boss paid £1500 for a mid-range Dell which didn't even have the option for USB, FireWire or Wireless.

Over the years, the only thing I had to add was 512 MB RAM, and the machine was used 24/7 and never had any problem. In fact, it runs faster with each OS X upgrade, and I see no reason why it can't be used for another 4 or 5 years.

In contrast, my boss's Dell had already been replaced with a new machine last years because it was too slow, even after he replaced the CPU and the hard drive and added a few other items.

Mac as Good Network Client
To clarify the call center example. I have a base install of pc that has a specific software. It is open full screen talking to server. I must now confirm that the mac has no issues talking to said base and that the software client behaves the way it should. Hopefully we have an option that gives the software on both platforms. If not then that must be gained. In training I must use more time as I have two platforms. I must also confirm that every upgrade of the client software is done for the two platforms at the same time. They must have the same functions. If not then I could have a situation that what "Peter" writes "Paul" will not have on his screen. Not good. Now, my question is. Why should I make the work flow more complicated and expensive when said client is open fullscreen. You will not see that much of a difference to validate the added cost. True, you have other examples that give more value to platform choice but the call center is not it. So, it is not an example of Word or Excel being on both platforms instead it's another software issue at hand.

Yes, I would prefer platform independant also but the truth is that it's not that easy.

Multi-platform Challenges and Benefits
I better understand your point now; you seem to cite the IT implications (rather than user implications) of a multi-platform environment in the corporation. Yes, in terms of software purchase and upgrades, training, system integration, testing and QA, as well as support, the up-front costs are higher in a multi-platform environment. But this doesn't argue in favor of Windows; rather it just argues in favor of using a single platform -- which could just as easily be Mac OS X or Linux. Indeed, there are studies done (such as one in Melbourne, Australia) which show that the total cost of ownership (which includes such things as life cycle, rate of repair, number of applications used per client, etc.), the Mac's cost is actually lower than that of Windows.

Be that as it may, the reality is that we live in a Microsoft world -- granted. But even though consumer choice and multi-platform environments are "not easy" (as you say), think how hard it is to have no choice at all and to submit to a single company -- a monopoly -- for all one's technology needs. You want "not easy"? I give you a Microsoft monopoly. Of course, to argue that individual companies should consolidate on a single platform is one thing; to argue that ALL companies should consolidate on the same platform is another. And if I understand you correctly, your position is for the former and not necessarily the latter. Alas, as we all know, all companies are going with Microsoft, and this freezes out consumer choice and ultimately even the IT personnel stand to suffer for lack of competition in the industry.

So even though there are challenges involved in achieving a multi-platform environment, (and you point out some of them), I still think on balance the technology industry and consumers alike are best served by having a vibrant diversity of companies and choices available. We need the option to choose that better mouse trap from the innovative entrepreneur. Hard though it may be in the current climate, I think it's essential.

Upgradeability
You say you would like to be in control of what you own -- and this leads you to favor Microsoft? Will wonders never cease! Good luck upgrading your hardware and then expecting to continue to use Windows XP without paying for a second XP license. Microsoft determines just to what degree you may upgrade components without having to pay a second time for the same OS you had already paid for. Apple makes no such onerous requirement. You can swap out memory, hard drives, PCI cards, etc. all you like, and OS X doesn't keep a tally or particularly care (except to the extent that it just works). Not so with Microsoft.

Numbers don't show the switching!
I'm 24 and I've used a PC all my life - too bad it's taken me this long to see the light. I'm switching as soon as the next powerbook revision comes around the corner. And Panther, good God!, Expose is enough for me to switch alone!

On a final note... for those who have seen the movie Office Space.. you know, the scene where they beat the crap out of the printer in the field? That is exactly what I'm going to do to my POS PC once I have my PB in hand ;)

Cheers.

Oh, please...
IBM ya nimwit, not Intel.

Oh, please...
Quite right. The developer of the Power 970 chip, which derives from the Power4 architecture, is IBM -- not Intel.

Upgradeability
Who said I was an average consumer? Average consumers shouldn't have any problem switching to a Mac, it's us high-end powerusers that do, for the reasons I stated above. And to follow through the above response, if my motherboard didn't support a second CPU... I could buy another motherboard!

Fact is, if you play modern games or use 3D software, the system is never fast enough. Just look at how the minimum requirements for the average game have shot up over the last year or two. A Mac G4 in its original configuration could barely hope to run something like Half Life 2 with maximum quality settings when it comes out in September.

A hardcore PC gamer would update his motherboard, CPU and video card and have a top system without having to shell out for a new hard drives, case, opticals, PSU etc as a Mac upgrade would demand. A considerable money saving.

If you're gonna use Office and play Tetris a Mac or a PC won't make any difference, but if you wish to keep up with the latest hardware and technology, x86 is where it's at.

Upgradeability
You are mixing up a variety of issues while seeming to operate under the impression it's all the same issue. I think we are all agreed that prices are generally lower on Wintel -- though Apple is now more price-competitive than ever before and in fact the newly announced G5 systems are actually LESS money than comparably equipped Dell counterparts. Same goes for the XServe (for its market). But if price dictated all, then you should run to Walmart and buy a $299 Lindows box. (The point being that clearly price does NOT dictate all, and that you ARE willing to pay more money for features, capability, etc.)

As for high-end gaming, I grant your point here, (though this was not main topic of your original post). However, with the arrival of the G5 chip, the Intel advantage in integer performance is all but erased and the floating point advantage appears to go to the G5 -- so high-end gamers might want to take a look at the G5 platform.

As for your being a "power user," I fail to see the relevance -- unless you think Unix boxes (which is what a Mac is today) don't appeal to power users or hackers. How you would get this impression I can't imagine, because this profile of user is actually flocking to the platform. Also, you mistake a multiplicity of BRANDS with hardware flexibility. These are not the same thing. You can swap out a motherboard on a Mac too -- and buy a new one -- but it must be bought through an Apple dealer. There are not multiple vendors you can choose from for such a product.

However, I still contend that at the end of the day, the Macintosh is, after all, a computer -- and it has all the components of a computer -- power supply, hard drives, CD/DVD drives, serial interfaces (such as USB and Firewire), Ethernet, dual-cpu architecture (for those who want it), PCI slots, DIMM slots, etc.

So if you want to be your own PC *assembler* and buy only components -- THAT is different. THEN the Intel box has the edge (because you can always find some company that sells kits). But how many users are in the market for THIS? I say it's a tiny percentage even of the Wintel market. Thus I hope you are not under the impression that THIS is the reason most people are reluctant to switch platforms.

OSX and $$$
I am a switcher. I love the OS and the hardware. But I still live in a Windows world. It will ALWAYS be that way most likely for the rest of any of our lives.

As far as upgrading and having to pay Microsoft for the OS upgrades.........GIVE ME A BREAK.

You think Apple is any different?!?!?! I bought an eMac running OS X and then had to pay another $129 for Jaguar (or OS X Service Pack 1 as I like to call it). Most "major" new features were cosmetic at best and hardly warranted paying for the upgrade. At least Microsoft doesn't charge for Service Packs! And now, Panther will be out soon (sooner for those with Bit Torrent) and I will again have to pay another $129 to upgrade very minor OS features.

However, I still like my 17" 1 ghz iMac. My only wish is that Quicken would look just like it does on the PC or Microsoft Money 2004 will also come out for OSX as well.

Numerous Erroneous Statements
Given the numerous false and misleading statements in your post is above, it's hard to believe you are a true switcher. First, contrary to what you say, you did not "have to" upgrade from version 10.1 to 10.2 of the OS. You could have continued using 10.1 as long as you liked. Apple *forced* you to do nothing. Second, a service pack from Microsoft is essentially only a bug-fix release with perhaps a few security holes plugged as well. Apple has similar updates for OS X which are designated by the SECOND decimal place in the version number.

Right now, for example, the latest version of Jaguar is 10.2.6 which means that since its initial release, Apple has created six subsequent incremental releases -- all of which have been utterly free of charge to existing Jaguar owners. Now of course the major releases do indeed come with a charge -- and I have never meant to imply otherwise. All software companies must recoup their development costs, and I don't begrudge any firm from charging a fee for any major release (and I've never said anything to the contrary).

Finally, the changes in the Jagaur release were not just cosmetic. In fact, that was the LEAST of it. There were many significant changes from the kernel level of the OS to the GUI (in terms of actual FUNCTION and not aesthetics). There were likewise a number of new bundled applications included with the Jaguar release. Apple also publishes these changes in plain English on its web site -- so customers can evaluate whether the release will be useful to them or not. In fact, here is the URL which details the features in the upcoming Panther release of OS X, scheduled for September:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/

So any implication on your part that you were misled about the significance of Jagaur release doesn't hold water.

These are all things that any true switcher would know. Thus I suspect you have your own agenda.

100% ACK.
The Jaguar was actually the first Mac OS X wich I was able to work with on my Wallstreet BowerBook G3 233MHz.

This was in fact no minor update!

Ulrich S. Kapp

You're completely wrong!
The lines, you are reading just now, I write them on a nearly 5 year old PowerBook G3 (Wallstreet) 233MHz (originally delivered with Mac OS 8,0 and a 2GB harddisk), and I'm using Mac OS X 10.2.6, the latest version of Apples OS and a 20GB harddisk.

And in fall, when Apples next OS version (10.3 aka Panther) will be available, I will upgrade and my old PowerBook will be worth its money more than ever.

But have a look at a five years old PC...
I have one. It's a midrange AMD K6 III based PC (Tyan Trinity Board with 2MB!! 2nd level cache) at 450 MHz.

Win98 - Win98SE it's ok.

But all other, including modern Linux distributions like SuSE 8.2, it's damn slow!!!

But I can be happy that it's a Tyan board, so would be able to install a new BIOS version and then install WinXP as well, if I wanted to. I have some friends who do have PCs, which are about the same age, 'off-the-shelf', they cannot install WinXP and they cannot install a larger harddisk because there's no BIOS upgrade available.

That's the way it is!!!

And did you ever look at eBay for used Macs?
Macs always have a very small loss of value compared with 'normal' PCs.

Did you ever think about the reason for this?

Please look beyond the rim of your teacup!

Ulrich S. Kapp

100% Reasonable
I can only address one point at a time. The original poster in this thread had an eMac -- which certainly can run OS X 10.1. As for your particular model, since it was released prior to the emergence of OS X, this is a different story. You are fortunate that Apple has sought to include your hardware for backwards compatibility. Having said that, as coincidence would have it, I have a friend (and my own manager at work) who uses a PowerBook G3 233 mhz and I personally installed OS X 10.1 on her computer -- so I'm not sure what your issues were.

Regardless, there is a limit to how far backwards compatibility can go. Are we not agreed on that? So frankly, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

OSX and $$$
>> At least Microsoft doesn't charge for Service Packs! And now, Panther will be out soon (sooner for those with Bit Torrent) and I will again have to pay another $129 to upgrade very minor OS features.

Have you bothered to take a look at Panther http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/ before dishing out misinformation? With a brand new Finder, Expose, FileVault, Fast User Switching, Xcode and so on, how the hell could you possibly call them minor features? And could you remind us why you have to upgrade ?

Windows Services Packs are for bug fixing, not new features. Panther is a huge leap forward from Jaguar, easily comparable to that from Windows 2005 Longhorn to XP, except that one is a reality while the other is still largely a concept.

Just because it takes MS 4 or 5 years to develop Longhorn doesn't automatically make it more valuable. Apple is just a vastly more efficient company than MS!

why switch to mac
For me, all the other considerations aside, Mac is simply more intuitive, still, than PCs, and yes, maybe that is mostly about the software, but it is also tthe operating system, which gives me so little trouble I can write or work in illustrator, quark or photoshop and really lose myself without having to stop. I work full time as an artist, writer and designer. My turnaround time on Macs is typically 5 to 6 years, and the Mac I give away is still running. My husband is an electrical engineer crunching away on a PC, Windows operating system. Turnaround time on his computers is 3 years at most and the PC goes belly-up to recycling and he crashes more than I do in the meantime. So yeah, PCs ARE

switching to mac
so yeah, PCs are cheaper. They should be.

OSX and $$$
And don't forget the weekly or sometimes daily Windows security patches that could kill your system. Under Mac OS X, Software Update is a 2-click process and fast. How long does a Windows update take and how do you calculate the cost due to the loss of productivity?

Yea, Windows rules
From c-net: http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5053063.html?tag=fd_lede2_hed

Cracking Windows
--------------------------
Swiss researchers released a paper on Tuesday outlining a way to speed the cracking of alphanumeric Windows passwords, reducing the time to break such codes to an average of 13.6 seconds, from 1 minute 41 seconds
--------------------------
"Windows passwords are not very good," he wrote. "The problem with Windows passwords is that they do not include any random information."
---------------------------------
The result: The same password encoded on two Windows machines will always be the same. That means that a password cracker can create a large lookup table and break passwords on any Windows computer. Unix, Linux and the Mac OS X, however, add a 12-bit salt to the calculation, making any brute force attempt to break the encryption take 4,096 times longer or require 4,096 times more memory.

My own conclusion: Windows is a risky product, and has never ever lived up to consumers expectations. It still stinks!

OSX and $$$
Ugh. Jaguar was a major improvement over 10.1. You just don't know what you're talking about. M$? Service Packs? Apple Charging? I think everyone will understand when I say, what the fuck are you talking about. Go open your system preferences, click software update. I belive those would be closer to the 'Service Packs' you're so fond of. And guess what? They're free. Lets not forget that M$ charges you around 300 bucks for a non-crippled version of their ugly bug ridden operating system. The only real difference between OS X and OS X Server is some nice front ends to various server apps. You can serve anything you want straight from OS X, it just takes a bit of tweaking like linux. You're a joke, go away troll.

Mac OS X Switcher
First of all, I like to experiment. I really like Linux (SuSE 8.2 with KDE), but as a desktop operating system it's lacking some key interoperability features with Windows. It's true, you need to be kind of a geek if you really want to push your Linux box, although Red Hat, SuSE and others have made it much easier than a couple of years ago. I plan to try Lindows 4.0 soon too.

However, my switch to the Apple G4 (dp) with Mac OS X has been relatively painless. I had to buy MS Office for OS X, but it works very nicely and makes me nearly compatible with WXP machines running Office XP (my old operating system). However, Entourage POP3 client needs MAPI interoperability with Exchange -- until we dump Exchange, that is.

The reason I switched from Microsoft is not to save money, or just because OS X is a better operating system, which it clearly is. My switch was driven by the criminal business practices of Microsoft. Microsoft needs to develop an acceptable platform, and not use their monopoly power to force OEMs and retail stores to use their products -- or else! Microsoft will have their day of reconing, and it will be much more severe than the weak DOJ and Federal Court results to date. I believe I'm a patriotic American, and I'm a Vietnam vet. I believe it's necessary to take action to do the right thing, and that means NOT buying products from a company that behaves in an un-American way. It's as simple as that.

Upgradeability
Mac Gamers buy PowerMac's... you can upgrade the video card (AGP OR PCI), add a sound card (PCI or USB), scsi controllers, NICs, hard drives, usb and firewire devices, and the list goes on.

My wife's powermac dual 867mhz G4 has 3 IDE controllers... she has her combo drive hooked up to one, her main hard drive on ata 100 controller and a second older drive from her dead pc on the ata 66 controller. Now thats expandable!

In addition, the computer came with an nVidia GeForce 4 MX card with 32 mb ram. I can play RTCW or any other game on it currently out for Mac OS X.

Plus she upgraded the ram to 1.25 gb.

She used to build her own pcs and now prefers the superiour stable Apple platform. (she used to run Solaris btw on her pc since windows sucks)

Developers don't use Macs?
I think the difference between a platform used by a developer and the target platform your program is being written for has been well explained. I'm using an OS X machine to develop, and I run Virtual PC to test the application of a Windows system. The Mac supports superior IDE tools and has other distinct advantages over the Win platform.

TS

Blind Leads the Blind
Your points are well made. As a long time Windows user from DOS to XP, I recently made the switch to Mac OS X. I even used to subscibe to Microsoft's developer groups (for $$$) to experiment with new operating system betas. I would never have switched to Mac OS 9 because I just wasn't interested in what I considered to be a dead end technology.

What I see is my G4/dp is as fast or faster than the P4-XP 3GHz machines I was using (and still must use at work). Apple does a great job of putting together software that works very nicely, especially for music and video. The interface is nice and the hardware is much better built than my Dell machines. Apples are a little more expensive, but I'm now buying for value not cheap cost.

Eveyone has their opinions, this is mine.

OSX and $$$
>Lets not forget that M$ charges you around 300 >bucks for a non-crippled version of their ugly >bug ridden operating system.
Well geez? Ya think? It *is* after all MS's main bussiness. If Apple sold the OS's apart from their computers, do you think they would be any cheaper?

And your right, the OS X interface does look better than the Windows interface. But what you don't apparently know is that the Windows interface is completely skinable. I can make it look like the OS X interface.

Apple and Mac users always talk about the appearance, but that's all OS X is, eye candy. Since Windows is more powerful (you can't argue with the fact that it can do more, and has more features), I like it more. Especially since I can make it have the appearance of OS X.

OSX and $$$
My God! Have you ever used Windows? First of all, the once every week or so updates don't bugger up your system. And there is *NO* downtime. It can download the updates in the backround, and install them without slowing down the computer.

I repeat Windows updates are *COMPLETELY SAFE* and have *NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DOWNTIME!*

Upgradeability
You are a complete MORONIC F**KWIT. HAVE YOU EVER USED WINDOWS XP?
1) The product activation, will require you to activate again, if you make MAJOR hardware changes. It does this because it thinks you've installed on a new computer.
2) If it's been over 120 days since you activated, the computer will activate over the internet no problem. If it's under 120 days, you make a 5 minute, toll-free call to MS, and tell them that you upgraded your computer, and they give you a number to type into the activation window to activate again. It's that easy. I've done it myself.

Please don't post information that you know NOTHING about.

Numbers don't show the switching!
fyi, if your trying to say "why," its "pourquoi."

Performance vs. Market
Funny, my Windows XP has only crashed once in the last two months, and that was when I was trying to use some crap program off some guy's FTP site.

Performance vs. Market
Funny, my Windows XP has only crashed once in the last two months, and that was when I was trying to use some crap program off some guy's FTP site.

It's the OS stupid
Same. And it only crashed once when I was trying to use a crap piece of software off some guy's FTP site.

Yea, Windows rules
Get with the times. I wish people would stop comparing macs to the 5 year old, outdated Windows 98. How about comparing it to XP? Hell, if Macs are so great for businesses as well, then how come they don't have a server like Windows Server 2003?

Yea, Windows rules
Get with the times. I wish people would stop comparing macs to the 5 year old, outdated Windows 98. How about comparing it to XP? Hell, if Macs are so great for businesses as well, then how come they don't have a server like Windows Server 2003?

OSX and $$$
OK everyone look, Jaguar is comperable to a MS service pack. If any of you took the time to find out what a service pack was you would see that it is major improvements for the OS, it fixes many bugs, and I think that Apple should never have released OSX in the state that it was. It ran perfectly on my mac, (a custom built g4 clone with a radeon 9800 pro) but the specs of that thing are so hgih that anything runs well. Now I also have a G3 lombard, and OSX ran like shit on it. I am neither a PC or a Mac fanbo, but people, get your facts straight. Oh and as far as longhorn being a concept, it already has a beta version out, and Panther won't be comperable to it. One last thing, what exactly is the problem with everyone here bashing Micrsoft, I think that they make a great operating system, and their server architecture is much better than apple's. I also love Unix and Linux, and I can't understand why everyone bashes Microsoft. It makes some stable and fast products, not to mention my pc will kick my Mac's ass in gaming and at least MS doen't lie on system benchmarks like apple does. I love Mac OSX, don't get me wrong, but as far as greed, apple shouldn't really be talking.

Thinking of Switching!
OK you Apple/PC brainiacs, to make an intelligent decision, the questions I need answered are, if I switch from a PC to a G5 (1.8GHz):
1) What CAN do on a G5 that I CANNOT do on a new PC?
2) What CAN'T I do on the G5 that I CAN do on a new PC?
3) Am I limiting myself (in productivity, ability, etc.), in anyway by switching from a PC to a G5?
4) Is there ANY productivity reason for a person to switch FROM a G5 TO a PC within the next 3 months?

Now I'm not talking about insignificant differences here, (ie. you can do this in only 3 steps instead of 6 steps with the other) and I'm not interested in hearing opinions, emotions, the distant future, (ie. vaporware), or the like. I do ask for very intelligent, factual, and true responses from anyone. Thank you very much for helping me decide.

What I have found so far (AND SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG), is:
1) If you own a G5, you cannot run ANY PC progams... RIGHT NOW.
2) IF and WHEN, Virtual PC works on the G5, I will be able to run EVERY program available on the PC, except for a few esoteric programs (some real estate program, visit some obscure web site, etc.)
3) Running XP on a G5, WILL be more stable than running it on a PC.
4) Running most/all PC programs on a G5 WILL be more stable than running them on a PC. (Through Virtual PC of course)
5) If you want to swap files via a 3.5" floppy (ie. from home to school) on a G5, you HAVE to get a USB external floppy drive. (I'm not talking CDs)
6) If you are an avid MS Access developer, you'll HAVE to do it running Virtual PC as there is NO Access database program available on the Apple.
7) ALL files (.jpg, .doc, .ppt, .mpg, etc.) saved to a CD on a G5 WILL upload to a PC program WITHOUT ANY problems. And visa versa!
8) Currently, there are over 5,000 known PC viruses (worms, trojans, etc.) infecting the PC platform, but there are less than 100 known viruses infecting the G5's platform.
9) The G5 can operate most/all major PC peripherals, printers, scanners, etc. EXCEPT it will NOT operate any parallel port only printers.
10) The G5 will work very well as part of a PC network, either as the server or client.
11) The speed of running a PC program through an emulator (ie. Virtual PC) using a G5 (single 1.8 GHz) will be very close, or faster, than running the same program on a PC with a processor less than 1.0 GHz.
12) The G5 is more resistant to lock-up/freezing than most PCs using XP.
13) When using the Internet via two windows simultaneously, one running XP/Explorer (through Virtual PC) and the other window running the G5's native browser, if a Windows virus is picked up which stalls or stops proper functioning of the XP based window,(ie. lockup, crash, etc.) this will NOT affect the operation of the G5, or ANY of it's Apple software.
14) The G5 is a TRUE and COMPLETE 64 bit system, hardware and operating system, whereas, PCs are not.
15) The G5 is a TRUE multitasker, whereas, PCs are NOT!
16) Many/most PC programs run on the G5 WILL drag and drop to a compatible program running on the Apple side of the G5 and visa versa. Example, draging a .jpg from say Photoshop running in an XP window, to an Apple-Word or Apple-Powerpoint document.

If all of the proceeding is true, then IF I switch, I will:
1) Lose the ability to print to a parallel printer.
2) HAVE to buy something additional if I want to save to a 3.5" floppy.
3) Have the ability to run virtually ALL (post about 1990) PC programs (IF and WHEN Virtual PC releases) and ALL Apple programs.
4) Be able to run both XP and Apple software SIMULTANEOUSLY without fear of crashing the G5 system, even if the XP side crashes.

For me, this is what it really boils down to. If I can't do anything SIGNIFICANTLY better, cheaper, or faster, with an Apple, then why switch at all!?!

Thank you for your responses.

Upgradeability
A friend of mine tells me that Microsoft no longer
gives advice about Windows 98 over the phone.
It seems they no longer support it, and they
expect you to by a new OS. Now what happens in
three of four years when they no longer support
XP? Suppose your motherboard dies (you can't
replace the battery on the CMOS). No more
activation codes! You now have a toy that you can
play with off-line that you must reinstall every
thirty days. Don't tell me you can't see this
coming.

Yea, Windows rules
uh, ever hear of the X-Server?

Numbers don't show the switching!
Office space was one of the best movies, I loved it when they went and hit the printer with the baseball bat...smash....crash...hehe

RESALE value
Theres one tiny thing you forgot that pcs have....UPGRADING

When my pc gets out of date I just upgrade my cpu or memory or whatnot, and save the old pieces. Soon I have enough leftover parts to build a server pc or a media center pc...and I save a lot more time and money than selling and buying a mac/pc.

RESALE value
Theres one tiny thing you forgot that pcs have....UPGRADING

When my pc gets out of date I just upgrade my cpu or memory or whatnot, and save the old pieces. Soon I have enough leftover parts to build a server pc or a media center pc...and I save a lot more time and money than selling and buying a mac/pc.

Mac isn't going the right way
>>Macs are harder to upgrade
>ROFL!

What he said is untrue. What he meant to say is true. Macs are easy to upgrade...just take them to your apple store and they will upgrade it. You have a very limited amount of upgrades you can do, which is what I think he meant to say. You can upgrade your memory or whatnot, but you get like 5 choices. With a PC you get 1000s of choices, which for some people is a disadvantage, and those people should buy Macs.

Mac isn't going the right way
But a pure Unix server is still better...

Wow....
Wow.

I am amazed by the stupididty of 99.9% of the people here. Macs crash less. PCs have more programs. Macs have better programs. etc. etc. If you are a average person who uses the comp for surfing the web, email, typing stuff, etc buy a mac. They are easier to use, more user friendly, and have rounded corners so you dont poke yourself. If you are like me and like to overclock and have the best hardware, get a PC. PCs crash more...if you dont know what your doing. I have not seen a blue screen of death in more than 6 months. It is overclocked .3Ghz. It has an etched biohazard window and cold cathodes. It is running windows and linux dual boot. It has a ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and AMD Athanlon XP 2600+. So if you don't know what Ghz stands for, get a Mac. Otherwise get a PC.
Case closed

Wow....
I am the same person who wrote the above comment.
I read all the comments and I saw that some people didn't understand #5 ". For developers, the PC is the preferred platform, with or without Windows. Most developers are developing applications to run on the PC or related Servers. Still, few are developing Mac applications, where having a Mac would be beneficial or necessary."

A lot of people thought that this ment PCs are better for developing programs on. What Steve ment, which is true, is that PCs are what programmers develop programs FOR. If 90% of the people with comps have PCs, are you going to develop your program for 90% of the people out there or 10%? duh.

The 90% is just an approximate.

OSX and $$$
OK if your a mac user and have never done a update, then don't talk about things you dont understand. I know from reading magazines and websites that they sound like 1 hour things that destroy your system. Windows update runs in the backround and most people never have a problem with them.

No, You're completely wrong!
There is no way your bios can prevent you from installing XP. The only thing that would stop you is a system that is too slow.

Upgradeability
If your friend still has 98, why didnt they upgrade? It came out maybe 4 years ago. Do you think apple supports whatever macos was out 4 years ago? NO! By the time ms stops supporting XP longhorn or whatever version will have been in place for 4 years, and if you haven't upgraded yet, get with the program!

Upgradeability
If your friend still has 98, why didnt they upgrade? It came out maybe 4 years ago. Do you think apple supports whatever macos was out 4 years ago? NO! By the time ms stops supporting XP longhorn or whatever version will have been in place for 4 years, and if you haven't upgraded yet, get with the program!

Upgradeability
#1 You have a limited amount of upgrades you can chose from, while with a pc you have 1000s of choices.

#2 Every Mac on apple's website was slower than mine, except for that 64 bit one. Macs dont need to be as fast because there arn't very many programs (and games) that need fast computers.

#3 If your one of those people who goes to your comp store and buys whatever dell the salesman talks you into, you should get a mac

#4 "In fact, it runs faster with each OS X upgrade, and I see no reason why it can't be used for another 4 or 5 years." Ummm.....a OS upgrade does not increase the speed of your processer....duh.....in 4 or 5 years its going to be a very old comp

Upgradeability
wow.

I went to apple's website, and they have a VERY limited selection of last year's video cards. For sound cards, they didn't even have one that supported surround sound. (maybe you could get a creative USB one).

"Mac Gamers" Thats a oxymoran (sp?). What kind of games do you play on a mac? I know there is UT2003 and a couple other new high end games, but other than that, theres nothing. When HL2 comes out, you have to wait for years until they maybe make a mac version.

"or any other game on it currently out for Mac OS X" What kind of games are those?

Upgradeability
omfg. I dont play any games with floating point integers. I also dislike the fact that mac users think all PC users have Intel CPUs. Have you heard of AMD????? There is also the one tiny detail that there are few high end games for Macs and VERY few good graphics cards for Macs (and no a G4 MX 440 is not a high end graphics card)

ITS NOT A INTEL BOX!!!

Upgradeability
omfg. I dont play any games with floating point integers. I also dislike the fact that mac users think all PC users have Intel CPUs. Have you heard of AMD????? There is also the one tiny detail that there are few high end games for Macs and VERY few high end graphics cards (and no a GeForce4 MX 440 is not high end graphics card)

ITS NOT A INTEL BOX!!!

Developers
He means that most developers develop software and hardware for PCs simply because there are more of them out there. He doesnt mean developed ON PCs or macs, developed FOR PCs.

Twist of Irony
First of all, he(she?) didn't say all the people, he/she just ment the majority do, which is true. And second of all, why are we called "Wintel?"

One to One
Hey AMD is not just some Intel clone, they created the chips too, although they are similar.

Marketshare & quality
Of course. The precentage of good products is higher on macs, however overall there are more good products for PCs than Macs.

proprietary mac software?
"and those usb to serial adaptors don't work so well under OS X"

Software Updates
And guess what? Microsoft hasn't forced me to upgrade either. I am still running win ME. Right now! And it works fine, no compatibility probs.

Another religious mac user
Another Mac user who assumes all macs are perfect, never crash, etc, while windows spend 99.9% of their time with the blue screen of death or reinstalling windows. Let me tell you a little secret: Here in windows land, you almost never reinstall unless you are a idiot, in which case you should get a mac. I have not seen the blue screen of death in more than a year. My computer is much faster than all but the very fastest 64 bit mac, and by next year it probably will.

Disagree with the articale
Let me ask you something: What do you use bluetooth for? Are you stupid enough to use your laptop where there is no extra light? Are you assuming pc laptops dont have wifi?

Gee, how original
How come every mac user says "My mac lasts 5 years"? After 5 years they don't get any faster, and if you keep a mac for 5 years, well it's gonna be pretty slow

It's the OS stupid
If used correctly and carefully, any OS can stay up for months. If not, it will crash.

Lies and statistics
Just an add in: more and more businesses (especially small businesses, who's owners (not IT people) make the purchasing decisions are stocking their offices with mac's. Everything from top Law offices (I believe there was an article about this in one of the major magazines like Newsweek or somethin) but many other industries as well.

Upgradeability
omfg. Do you even know what you are talking about? There is no such thing as a "floating point integer"—integers don't have "points," let alone floating ones. And if you think you don't game with floating points, then I'd like to know what games from the 1980's you play that tax your system.

Fool.

One to One
Yes, they created the chips, but there's a reason they can run the same applications as the pentium family does: they copied Intel's instruction set.

As far as the OS/Applications are concerned, the processor is a black box, you tell it to do things, and it does them. Intel and AMD may do things differently inside the black box, but they both have the same language. The point is not that AMD knocks-off Intel (in fact, IMAO AMD is superior to Intel in myriad ways) but that supporting different chips from different manufactures when in fact they are "work-alikes" is not too spectacular an accomplishment.

Mac Vs. Windows
Basically, the way I see it is: Some people like Mac (boo) and some people like Windows (yay). Whe dont we leave eachother alone!! If you crack it down, niehter is better, it is what you prefer. Case closed.

MAC FOREVER
MAC RULES. I DON'T OWN ONE, I OWN AN THINKPAD. BUT WHEN I GET A JOB, HERE I COME MAC!!! WWWWOOOOO!!!!

Macs... shucks...
I spent a total now of 6 hours reading down this entire page, i'll tell ya I have one heck of a headache, but to the point, i'm not going to bring statistics in or anything like that, neither is any worse or better then the other in my opinion, each can become outdated with time, and with work each can be upgraded equally to match the other, so whats the point in arguing. My point is this. no matter how much you do to either mac, or windows, both in time react the same. I have both, and I download equally and play as hard on equally, and when one screws up from errors so does the other from my miscaculations, just a matter of time, so whats the big deal. I have no prefrence and I own both, and use both to work off one another, probably a first in some aspects. so why not see eye to eye?

Macs... shucks...
And to add a little bit to my own comment, because I caught something I didn't read before untill now. Depending on the user, systems will handle diffrently, I have a friend who frequently crashes a mac, and I mean over and over in one day. as for me it's fine cause I don't do anything I shouldn't, now for upgradabilty, yea macs can hang in there more, but when it is time to upgrade, it's a little harder to find parts unlike PC, so that equals out in the longrun, stability of both as explained can be fine so long as you don't run it into the ground, I think why there is so many problems with windows is the reason of, so many people USE windows, so obviously there is going to be a greater number of problems. now, try doing an average, how much of a percent of mac uses have problems and how much of a percent of windows users. I would guess close to the same, though I don't know for a fact. So the terms of this entire page can be brought into a little better context with these new perspectives, I have had both my comps, running fine now for about 3 years, each equally powerfull and each realitivly same specs, each operating the same under the same amount of stress.

RE: MAC FOREVER
Get a life looser, i bet you havn't even used a mac. Plus i bet your some silly kid(i am not knocking kids just this looser.

Wow....
ok-
macs-
•macs have better software
•the fastest mac is faster than the fastest pc (dual g5 vs. dual xeon)
•macs don't have any viruses (cept for for like 2)
•macs are stable
•macs don't die
•anything you want software-wise that isn't on mac- get virtual pc.
•macs have superior networking
•macs are prettier (os and hardware) and are more user-friendly

pc's-
•cheaper (usually, though the cheapest in-production mac is 800)
•pc's are more speed for less (you have have to spend a lot to get a superior mac)
•pc's don't have so many proprietary parts, so they're easier to upgrade parts like cpu.
•pc's have a greater selection
•it's easy to make your own pc
•pc's have more software (though not professional stuff, and you can just get virtuall pc)
• you won't get made fun of for having a pc.

why do i use a mac?
I'm used to them. some people complain that macs are hard to get used to when they switch- apple's help file has good stuff for switching (i.e. "the apple menu is like the start menu," etc...).
macs are prettier. i never got windows because it's ugly.
two arguments for pc's to refute-
1) cheaper hardware
2) more software
a) there are cheap macs too, but that's beside the point. i mean, kias are cheap cars, but they're also crap. macs are better quality. that's key.
2) a- macs have better software, especially the proprietary stuff (ilife, etc.). b- anything that isn't on pc, you just get a g4 and virtual pc. c- most pc software is on mac (adobe, macromedia, ms office, etc.) or there is something comparable.

bottom line- there's nothing that you can do on a pc that you can't do on a mac. if you're worried about cost, get an emac or a used g4 tower.

peace.

How fun this is....
HI... I just needed to take this out of my system. I am looking forward to buy an iMac in the next couple of weeks (I'm grabbing the money from here and there). Being an Electronics Engineer, I consider myself a rather advanced user. I've administrative experience in Windows (95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP), Linux (RedHat/SuSe), Solaris (8/9). I tried the Panther and liked it. So I decided to switch, and was doing some research until I found this site.
I just wanted to express my feelings that this is the best two and a half hours that I've spent reading a website in quite a long time. It just amused me to read how people "insulted, shouted, screemed, cursed" at each other!. It was hillarious!... the best one was this guy who wrote was furious and after insulting the previous posting, he said something about "Floating Point Integers"... Hehehehe.. that was funny and revealing....

Well, anyway... it's worth reading a couple... I got hooked!... after submitting this I'm going to read some more... ;)

someone make a clear point
i've been reading all the posts here cause i'm considering switching to a mac. the problem is that it seems totally balanced between pc and mac lovers and haters. shit man...you guys aren't making this easy for me. there's too much ego in everyone's comments to be able to determine what the better product is here. ok mac people...you have huge balls...and pc guys...wow those pectoral muscles are astonishing. now should i switch to a mac or not.

Switch very easy
My non-computer friend switched to the miniMAC
last month. He loves it.
Keeps saying he now is a MAC guy.

If I could only find a way to explain the differance between his harddrive and the computers memory.

And how to stop him from worrying about space
on the new system. 40GB HD.
His Windoz XP had 6GB.

Kevin

OSX and $$$
WOW the stupity of both sides is amazing i got an idea lets fight to the death over this. Lets look when the guy said pc he did not imply windows he implied the platform which can run unix linux windows lindows etc... where as a mac uses a dif processor type and the programs for the pc platform are not compatible... a computer is only as good as its programers.. my linux on my pc never once crashed where as my windows did my mac osx never crashed but previous macs have.. so at this moment i would have to say apple has better programmers then microsoft but not better then all the programers out there free sourcing linux...

OSX and $$$
No down time what abut the mandatory restarts? uh uh.. yeah LIAR!!!!

Switching to Apple Mac
I can't for the life of me believe people are still having battles over this (non) issue.

Ever heard of personal preference? All you Mac bashers out there, what would you be saying if we lived in a Microsoft only world? No choice, unreliable and over priced.

I switched from my Windows access point (despite it being sold to me as a personal computer - could only run Windows as the makers of the PC only support Windows) to an Apple G5 PowerMac dual 2.Ghz with 4GB DDR RAM.

Why? Because I could. Why? Because I made a choice. Why? Because I had too many Windows crashes, lost information, too many 'here we go again reformats' on a P4 3Ghz 2GB DDR RAM 250GB HDD (Raid) system.

Mac OS X according to Mactopia (Microsoft's Apple Products site, like Microsoft Office for Mac etc) is the most reliable and powerful operating system on the planet.

Yet Windows users keep argueing the point, better game play on a PC etc etc. There are devices called Playstation or XBox 360's for playing games on, which are much cheaper than a full spec Alienware Games Box.

In over 2 years of running exclusively Apple Mac, I have never lost any information due to a system failure. I have never had to defragment and reformat my machine. I have never had my sytem fail me. . . EVER.

My PowerMac G5 allows me to process 200 RAW images, while burning a DVD, while listening to iTunes, while converting 8 or more home movies in Quicktime Pro into iPod Video files using the High Def H.264 codec and surf the internet simultaneously.

I don't play games on my computer. A computer is far too useful than wasting time playing stupid little beat em up or shoot em dead games (grow up you really will never be that hero).

I'd like to see a Windows based box that could do that without hiccuping, coughing and spluttering until the famed BSOD appears.

Why switch to Apple Mac? Simple, if you want to get on with the tasks you need to do or enjoy doing an Apple Mac allows you to do just that without the worry of loosing important information or pictures from a one time only photoshoot or an advanced genetic string you're working on or whatever it may be.

If Macs are so bad at graphics, why was King Kong, amongst many other major Cinema releases, special effects all done using Shake on a Mac platform? Why do Pixar use Macs for their full length computer animated features? (Yeah Steve Jobs has a hand in Pixar, but they want the best results available so they use the fastest most reliable and most powerful systems available).

I'm not sponsored by Apple, I don't work for Apple. I use Apple computers because I made a choice and no-one, not even you single minded Window-philes are going to dictate, shout, scream or rant on as you usually do to say I made the wrong decision.

In your opinion, like the unfortunate individual that started this thread, I may have made the wrong decision, but my life is easier, less stressful and more productive as a result of my switch to Apple and OS X. What is so wrong about that?