"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term
The term "IBM compatible PC" is outdated, as IBM no longer sets the direction (at least as much as it once did) of Wintel PCs.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"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term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"IBM compatible PC" is outdated term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.