Jump to content
Swad

Apple: Form vs. Function

162 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

...(Two-finger right click, and the Mighty mouse, which despite what lots of people say is pretty much good for everything except gaming... and only for freaks who need to differentiate between mouse buttons very very often and at the same time with really annoyingly quick response times for moving, shooter idiots. God, seriously they think gaming's all about them, eesh :P )

 

So you're saying that only gamers would need a mouse with quick response times and more buttons? That's hilarious.

 

My mouse has 5 buttons and a scroll wheel. I do everything from Photoshop to audio production, and I use every button on my mouse in almost every application. Why? Because it's more productive. Why should I have to reach all the way over to the keyboard for things that I do over and over when I already have my hand on the mouse? I would probably work an extra two hours a week if I had a one-button or even two-button mouse.

 

Apple really is impressive, though. Not only can they keep shipping out one-button mice years and years after everyone else has moved on, but they can actually convince their users that this is a good thing! :whistle: You wouldn't want the response times to be too fast, after all. It might confuse someone.

 

I thought Macs were supposed to be MORE productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Well, the Mighty mouse has two buttons and a clickable scroll whell. But seriously, if they want to limit themselves, they have to offer more options. Apple has a great platform, but won't have me as a buyer until they end the proprietary stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and before anyone tells me I can use any mouse I want, I KNOW that. That's not the point. The point is that a company who supposedly prides itself on productivity and studying human/computer interaction took about 10 years to figure out that people work better with more than one button on their mouse.

 

In fact, that had nothing to do with it. The reason Apple didn't use a two-button mouse is because they didn't want to be like IBM, and now it's because they don't want to be like Windows. That's great and all, but that's like not putting seat belts in your car because you don't want to be like every other auto company.

 

Of course, now Macs run Windows, so things have really turned around, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea behind it and as someone who uses a lot of the stuff in Komplete, being able to easily

categorize sounds would be a huge benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and before anyone tells me I can use any mouse I want, I KNOW that. That's not the point. The point is that a company who supposedly prides itself on productivity and studying human/computer interaction took about 10 years to figure out that people work better with more than one button on their mouse.

 

In fact, that had nothing to do with it. The reason Apple didn't use a two-button mouse is because they didn't want to be like IBM, and now it's because they don't want to be like Windows. That's great and all, but that's like not putting seat belts in your car because you don't want to be like every other auto company.

 

Of course, now Macs run Windows, so things have really turned around, huh?

 

Well, my opinion is that they are spearheading a movement to design and manufacture the only machine that you'll need... you can't (legally) run Mac OS X on a PC.

 

Doesn't it make sense to design machines that will open up doors for PC users to switch over to a machine with a superior OS and FIANALLY convince them that they can leave Winblows behind and not have to change their work flow?

 

I'm not sure that you have noticed that the Mighty Mouse by default is configured as a one button mouse in System Preferences for the "old school" users such as yourself. So you don't feel that you have to change your work flow either.

 

This is from someone whom was a LONG TIME M.$. user and has finally seen the light, in fact I'm in the top 100 global ranking in the Apple Sales Training Certified Professionals, AND sales manager for an independant Apple Reseller. This after being a PC technician for over 8 years and claiming for years that I'd never switch to what I refered to as "the dark side"... I've never been so happy with a machine that I'd give away all of my other computers to my family (and tell them I wouldn't even look at them, take your repairs elsewhere!)

 

... just my two red cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple is a perfectionist. They want everything perfect. :-)

 

Form? When people see my Mac Mini, they go "oohhhh ahhh" just like when they see any other Mac. Even the insides are beautiful, so any avid mac user (Who does look inside) is proud to see that their machine was built with the utmost perfectionism.

 

Function? My 3 1/2 year old Computer still runs the most popular online game today (WoW) and can run the newest most innovative photo editing software on the planet (Photoshop CS3) so.

 

Tell me you can do that on a $800 Canadian Dell computer thats smaller a Ziplock Container? Haha no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple does a good job. If you were a gamer, and you go to a LAN party and plop a pile of $41T down, you're gonna get some funny looks. PC makers don't care really what their product looks like, but focus on if it works (sometimes) and if they make a profit. Mostly the profit part. As stated before, Apple is a group of perfectionists. The only problem though, is that their perfect computers cost much more than your average crapola PC. If they were to rethink and lower the costs, but keep the ease of use, than they would have many more people switching to Mac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apple is a perfectionist. They want everything perfect. :-)

 

Form? When people see my Mac Mini, they go "oohhhh ahhh" just like when they see any other Mac. Even the insides are beautiful, so any avid mac user (Who does look inside) is proud to see that their machine was built with the utmost perfectionism.

 

Function? My 3 1/2 year old Computer still runs the most popular online game today (WoW) and can run the newest most innovative photo editing software on the planet (Photoshop CS3) so.

 

Tell me you can do that on a $800 Canadian Dell computer thats smaller a Ziplock Container? Haha no.

 

I'm not impressed by the mini. There's no upgrade ability in it at all. Except maybe for the processor, ram, and hard drive. The video card is built in and non-replaceable. Same thing with the sound. It is onboard. It is not meant for gaming. The only reason there is no equivalent PC like the mini is because no one would buy it. I like the ability to upgrade plus get it at a cheaper price too. The looks to me are nothing. How functional it is, is much more important. Sure you may get ooh's and aah's at first, but once someone like me would sit down and use it, I'd find it very limiting.

 

As for the 3 and a half year old computer running WoW and photoshop cs3, I looked at the minimum requirements for both. And the PC is not more expensive and can still run both, coming from the same era. In fact the only thing you have here is the smaller form factor of the mac. And you pay more for that. Mainly because you need the laptop sized parts for what is essentially supposed to be a desktop computer, which doesn't make sense to me at all. I'd rather pay less, get the same thing, and spend my saved money on other things. You can pay more because it looks better, but that's all you're getting.

 

And the apple tv is a typical example of apple design and function. That is silent but it can get hot. Even Scott Born, an avid mac user or fan boy, said he popped some popcorn on it. One thing is you never touch the top lid of it when it's been on for a bit. It'll make you move your fingers quickly. And we all know that the more heat a computer like device has, the shorter its life span. Now apple could have made it half an inch higher and added some vents to it to vent off some of the heat from it so it wouldn't be as hot on top. But then it wouldn't look as nice. Guess they expect you to buy a new one when the current one dies because of too much heat.

 

Besides, didn't apple under clock the ati graphics card in the imac's because they were generating too much heat in the form factor the imac is in? So because of apple's stubbornness to stick to esthetics instead of performance, you get a product that can perform less. Nice. Not me for me.

 

Well, my opinion is that they are spearheading a movement to design and manufacture the only machine that you'll need... you can't (legally) run Mac OS X on a PC.

 

But you can try atleast now. And Apple could gain some customers then. But not me.

 

Doesn't it make sense to design machines that will open up doors for PC users to switch over to a machine with a superior OS and FIANALLY convince them that they can leave Winblows behind and not have to change their work flow?

 

Superior OS? That's all in the mind of the user. But calling names doesn't help your position. Call it what it is. By the way, I work with linux as well as Windows.

 

I'm not sure that you have noticed that the Mighty Mouse by default is configured as a one button mouse in System Preferences for the "old school" users such as yourself. So you don't feel that you have to change your work flow either.

 

Face it, the mighty mouse was poorly designed. Especially when a $15 2 button mouse works better then the mighty mouse, that tells ya something.

 

This is from someone whom was a LONG TIME M.$. user and has finally seen the light, in fact I'm in the top 100 global ranking in the Apple Sales Training Certified Professionals, AND sales manager for an independant Apple Reseller. This after being a PC technician for over 8 years and claiming for years that I'd never switch to what I refered to as "the dark side"... I've never been so happy with a machine that I'd give away all of my other computers to my family (and tell them I wouldn't even look at them, take your repairs elsewhere!)

 

... just my two red cents.

 

You mean you finally decided to switch and you ended up liking it. I like PC's because of their flexibility, that I'm not locked into a particular OS with it. All that good stuff. I get none of that with a Mac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not impressed by the mini. There's no upgrade ability in it at all. Except maybe for the processor, ram, and hard drive. The video card is built in and non-replaceable. Same thing with the sound. It is onboard. It is not meant for gaming. The only reason there is no equivalent PC like the mini is because no one would buy it.

 

I can tell you have no knowledge of hardware whatsoever...and your posts continue to substantiate that fact as well. There is no video card on the mini at all. Do you even know what a video card is? The mini has an integrated graphics chip that uses the main system memory to process hardware accelerated tasks. Atleast you got the "onboard sound" part right. :rolleyes:

 

Finally one more point I'd like to bring up. Now that mac's are using intel cpu's, we now can watch for months to go by before they release a product that uses that new chip. All other PC makers, they have them right away for sale. The mac faithful are use to waiting for stuff like this. The rest of us using PC's don't like to wait and when we see another pc maker using the new intel cpu's already and apple has no mention of it when they will have them ready, they will just buy a PC instead of a Mac.
haha You nailed it. He's trying to compare a highend gaming machine that is over clocked as well against his mac mini with on board graphics. Some people really are delusional. They are in 2 different classes. Plus PC users have been able to buy quad core intel pc's for a while now. Why haven't mac users been able to?

 

 

Do you even know your facts? Apple was one of the first ones to use the Dual core intel processors back in begenning of 2006...only later did the majority of the PC manufacturers catch up..like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, etc. And PC users have been able to buy quad cores for a while now?Well Mac users have the ability to buy Dual Intel Xeon Octa-Core processors running at blazing 3Ghz now (just incase you never got the umph, thats 8 cores)...and guess what...only Apple has that deal. No other computer maker out there right now has 8-core processors (clovertown) avaliable to them. So now let me ask you this...why haven't diehard PC users been able to? :(

 

Besides, didn't apple under clock the ati graphics card in the imac's because they were generating too much heat in the form factor the imac is in? So because of apple's stubbornness to stick to esthetics instead of performance, you get a product that can perform less. Nice. Not me for me.

 

Umm...your knoledge is a bit primitive there. :rolleyes: . Apple underclocked the video cards on the Core Duos...becasue yes they were generating too much heat...but with the Newer Core 2 Duos...Apple clocked the video cards back to normal speeds because the processors were more efficient, and generated less heat, and this hapened with both the iMacs AND the Macbook Pro's. And since now the CD line is discontinued...all of Apple's computer have normal clocked cards.

 

Even Scott Born, an avid mac user or fan boy, said he popped some popcorn on it

 

And I would guess you believe in flying pigs as well right? Are you really that gullable? :blink:

 

You mean you finally decided to switch and you ended up liking it. I like PC's because of their flexibility, that I'm not locked into a particular OS with it. All that good stuff. I get none of that with a Mac.

 

Sigh...another false statement. Aparently you've never heard of Bootcamp, which allows you to run Windows XP, Vista, and Linux if you want. Honestly, do some research before you post garbage like that. You make yourself look dumb...especially when everyone else knows what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple does a very bad job concerning function and that is because the company is still arrogant and a hardware monopolist. They always do what they want and not what the customers want. Of course I love the Mac OS but basically nowadays I would like to use the computer also for gaming.

What do we see Apple brings out an 8core Mac Pro but where are the new grahic options. Like the new geforce 8 series for instance. No, Apple still has a bunch of old EFI Graphics card which they want to sell. I say keep them!

 

What is the problem with at least allowing the users to get video cards from other vendors. If Apple would change their ways I would certainly buy a Mac Pro because it is a fast machine and a technically well designed. But now I am waiting for a better Mac Pro and annoyed.

 

If Leopard comes out for hackintosh then I am not surprised if people built there own again. Also the case of the Mac Pro is so non functional. Cooler Master for instance has great looking cases which give so much room for all your harddisks and drives. So again why are delivered to Apple's arrogance and non functional design.

 

Yes I admit I am an Apple hater and lover.

 

Another example is the Apple TV. Everybody uses Divx and Xvid files. And again why not offer that Divx/ Xvid play functionality. No, you have to get the harddisk out and install it yourself. Or the video recorder function, why not. Restictions I hate them and I think they comes from Steve. That is because Steve does not believe in computer in combination with TV he rather would like to see us buy movies via iTunes offcourse. Apple can keep Apple TV where I am concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can tell you have no knowledge of hardware whatsoever...and your posts continue to substantiate that fact as well. There is no video card on the mini at all. Do you even know what a video card is? The mini has an integrated graphics chip that uses the main system memory to process hardware accelerated tasks. Atleast you got the "onboard sound" part right. :rolleyes:

 

Well you managed to twist my words around, just like any mac fan boy. I know what an on board video card is. I build my own pc's. I can choose from a variety of parts that no mac user has available to them. See here for the specs on the mac mini. And directly from the page:

 

Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

 

That is by definition an onboard video card. It is also called an integrated graphics chip, because it is on the motherboard itself. They both have the same meaning. It is not removable and therefore non-upgradeable. Completely useless to someone like me. So yes thank you for proving my point. Here you can find out more info on the intel gma 950 integrated graphics, IE on board video card.

 

Do you even know your facts? Apple was one of the first ones to use the Dual core intel processors back in begenning of 2006...only later did the majority of the PC manufacturers catch up..like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, etc. And PC users have been able to buy quad cores for a while now?Well Mac users have the ability to buy Dual Intel Xeon Octa-Core processors running at blazing 3Ghz now (just incase you never got the umph, thats 8 cores)...and guess what...only Apple has that deal. No other computer maker out there right now has 8-core processors (clovertown) avaliable to them. So now let me ask you this...why haven't diehard PC users been able to? ;)

 

Yes they were first for core duo, but after that they lagged behind. Remember people asking when Apple would come out with a core 2 duo laptop? And what about a quad core desktop model? Not one with the more expensive xeon processors, but with the qx6700 or the qx6800. That was out in November 2006. Still no mac with that on it this very day. Still say Apple keeps ahead? Seems to me only when they get the chips first do they get out something that uses them before everyone else. But if Intel gives it to everyone, Apple is last in releasing something with them. As for the quad xeon's, they were out in December 2006.

 

Umm...your knoledge is a bit primitive there. :rolleyes: . Apple underclocked the video cards on the Core Duos...becasue yes they were generating too much heat...but with the Newer Core 2 Duos...Apple clocked the video cards back to normal speeds because the processors were more efficient, and generated less heat, and this hapened with both the iMacs AND the Macbook Pro's. And since now the CD line is discontinued...all of Apple's computer have normal clocked cards.

 

I was right. Apple did underclock the ati graphics cards. And it seems they have changed that for when using core 2 duo. But that wasn't the point. The point is that Apple will sacrifice performance if they can keep their pretty form factor, which you pay more for in the end anyways. Because they still end up paying the same price for those ati graphics chips whether they ran at normal speed or not. Hence you get less for more money.

 

And I would guess you believe in flying pigs as well right? Are you really that gullable? :blink:

 

Ever watch mac break? You must, you are an Apple Fan Boy. They even said not to touch the lid of the appletv because of how hot it gets. And if only Apple had decided to make it half an inch taller, then they would get much better air ventilation. But then it wouldn't look as pretty. And we all know how Apple loves to make it look pretty, so yes they didn't do that. And the hotter a microprocessor gets and its components, the shorter life span it has. As for what I said about popping pop corn, he only said it worked for 8 kernels. But that is still pretty damn hot to be able to do that. :)

 

Sigh...another false statement. Aparently you've never heard of Bootcamp, which allows you to run Windows XP, Vista, and Linux if you want. Honestly, do some research before you post garbage like that. You make yourself look dumb...especially when everyone else knows what they are talking about.

 

Actually I have, but if you recall, Apple had to release an update for the efi in order to get Vista to boot. No such thing on the PC. I had been able to run Vista beta's for months without having to worry about needing an update for my bios. And besides, even if I wanted to run OS X, I could through some hacks for OS X. Plus I don't have to have such pricey hardware from one manufacturer only. I have many to choose from. I like the PC market. Diversity really is better then a monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you managed to twist my words around, just like any mac fan boy.
Diversity really is better then a monopoly.

 

I'm not a fanboy, and I have nothing to twist...you were wrong to begin with. I openly will admit Apple's faults and OS X's faults when someone actually trully takes the time to explain it out, without comparing it to how windows this and windows that, which is what I hate, and which is what makes me get offensive. Apple is not perfect...and a true non-fanboy user would know that...such as myself. However, talking about how they monopolize their computer market without realizing how much Microsoft monopolizes is just plain wrong.

 

first example...as a gamer...I'm guessing you already know that Halo 2 for PC's is only coming on Vista....even though its a Dx9 game only. Isn't that a major monopoly? I mean after all..Halo is the game that got the XBOX its fame right?

 

Second example...Songs that were previously purchased in Microsoft's MSN music library wil NOT play on the Zune...only DRM protected songs ( as well as your other MP3's) will play...isnt this a monopoly, for all those individuals who purchased songs legally from Microsoft's MSN library, only to have MS lock them out later?

Third example...many of the different editions of Vista don't have all the features of Windows Vista Ultimate, so individuals who are already paying significant cant amount for an operating system do not get everything they want the first time...isn't this a monopoly? especially when Apple offers everything in 1 version?

Fourth example...Microsoft forces new users of Windows Vista with 2 proprietary softwares Internet Explorer 7, and Live search...isn't this a monopoly?

 

Fifth Example....Microsoft cripples any version of its software that it designs for other operating system. Take Office 2004 for example...it is no where as feature rich as what Office 2003 for Windows is...isnt this a monopoly?

Sixth Example....Microsoft enforces the use of the video format AVI, and WMA on the Zune players...both of which are owned by them...isn't this a monopoly?

 

Seventh Example....Microsoft cripples MSN messenger on OS X....the most largest used instant messaging software....and if you saw the version for OS X...you would see how crippled Microsoft made it...isn't this a monopoly?

 

Eighth Example....Micrsoft has the biggest monopoly with Internet expoloer...which has the most usage of any browzer out there...even though its features and security are not as powerful as Firefox's...or Opera's. Isn't this a MAJOR monopoly?

 

Ninth Example...All major corporations use Windows as their operating system...even thouh it has numnerous holes and basically flaws...isnt this a MAJOR monopoly?

 

Tenth Example....In 1994, Microsoft offered IBM an $8 discount on each Windows 95 license if IBM would exclude mention of other operating systems in its marketing campaigns. The deal would have required IBM to abandon its own OS/2 operating system. IBM declined and began promoting its own application suite over Microsoft's. Microsoft then terminated negotiations. IBM received its license for Windows 95 only 15 minutes before the product launched, causing IBM to fall behind in back-to-school sales. Isn't this a monopoly?

 

Eleventh Example...In 1995, Netscape didn't receive needed information about the underlying technology for Windows 95 until months after the operating system was released, excluding Netscape from most of the holiday selling season. Isn't this a monopoly?

 

Twelfth Example - In 1995 and early 1996, Compaq removed the MSN icon from the desktop of its consumer PC and replaced it with an icon for America Online's Internet service. The company also removed the icon for Internet Explorer in favor of Netscape Navigator. Microsoft sent a letter on May 31, 1996, to the company threatening to terminate Compaq's Windows 95 license. Compaq returned to its original desktop setting the next month. Isn't this a monopoly?

 

Thirteenth Example - In 1998, Microsoft got computer makers to agree that if they did not preinstall Windows 98 on their PCs, they would have to pay a higher price for the operating system. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson held that although this strategy helps combat piracy, it "makes it less likely that consumers will detect an increase in the price of Windows," and it helps make operating systems not installed by PC manufacturers less attractive. Isn't this a MAJOR monopoly?

 

 

 

 

So dont talk as if Apple has the most monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly is even greater...infact far greater if you include the relevant history. People just dont konw this because of the market share value...which masks this effect...allowing Microsoft to slide by every single time. More and more consumers are realizing this...which is a good thing.

 

 

That is by definition an onboard video card. It is also called an integrated graphics chip, because it is on the motherboard itself. They both have the same meaning. It is not removable and therefore non-upgradeable. Completely useless to someone like me. So yes thank you for proving my point. Here you can find out more info on the intel gma 950 integrated graphics, IE on board video card.

 

An integrated graphics chip is NOT a video card. The term "Video card" is used to describe a physical expansion card that is located on the slots on a motherboard. Something that is soldered into the mobo as a chipset is NOT called a card. The Intel GMA900 and 950 are graphics "chips', not graphic "cards". The GMA950 does not take the physical dimentions of an actual card. So what I proved was that you were wrong...but the fact of the matter is you dont know how to admit that you made a typo the first time. Your trying to justify your mistake (if in fact you do have hardware knowledge as you claim).

 

 

I was right. Apple did underclock the ati graphics cards. And it seems they have changed that for when using core 2 duo. But that wasn't the point. The point is that Apple will sacrifice performance if they can keep their pretty form factor, which you pay more for in the end anyways. Because they still end up paying the same price for those ati graphics chips whether they ran at normal speed or not. Hence you get less for more money.

 

It doesnt matter...the fact is you never knew that the cards were now clocked back to their normal speed. You (in your previous post) talked with a sense of knoledge as if Apple is still doing this...WHEN in fact they are NOT. The fact that Apple is even able to fit an X1600 in the slim form factor of the MBP is in itself a major accomplishment. Go and get me a link of a Dell, or a Toshiba, or even a Sony, with the same dimentions and thickness of the MBP...with an X1600. It will be extremely difficualt, if not impossible. You dont give credit where its due...but rather go on bashing Apple as if they underclocked the cards by 50% or something...when in fact it was only by a few Mhz clock speed and a few Mhz memory speed....which would cost you about 2-7fps max..when playing a game. Moreover, the Radeon X1600 was underclocked only because of Windows XP heating issues. It could be clocked back to normal under OS X (on the Core Duos), and would run just fine. It was becuase it was heating up under windows XP, that Apple had to make this move.

 

 

Actually I have, but if you recall, Apple had to release an update for the efi in order to get Vista to boot. No such thing on the PC. I had been able to run Vista beta's for months without having to worry about needing an update for my bios. And besides, even if I wanted to run OS X, I could through some hacks for OS X. Plus I don't have to have such pricey hardware from one manufacturer only. I have many to choose from. I like the PC market.

 

Nice try trying to cover up your past incorrect post. Apple's EFI update was included with Bootcamp. What you fail to mention is how easy Apple has made it to install Windows....while if you want to Install OS X(86) on the PC...you would have to get the hacked version....and then your still not guaranteed whether all your hardware will work, and will have to do extensive kext hunting on the internet to get your hardware to work near 100%. while on Bootcamp...your hardware is fully supported, from the iSight, to the Apple remote. So dont talk as if installing OS X on PC's is easier than installing Windows on Macs, when clearly its the other way around. Pricey hardware? Are you kidding me...if you want to game, your not going to game on a GeForce 7300, or a Radeon X1300....so assuming that...its not cheap on the PC side either buddy. And face it...gaming on Vista is pathetic so far, contrary to what Microsoft wants you to believe. I use XP only for gaming (a 10gb partition on my MBP), and thats all...for everything else, I use OS X. Only when games truly start cutting support for XP (which wont be in for another 4 years), then Ill move to vista for just gaming (still not going to dish out $400 for that though ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you managed to twist my words around, just like any mac fan boy. I know what an on board video card is. I build my own pc's. I can choose from a variety of parts that no mac user has available to them. See here for the specs on the mac mini. And directly from the page:

 

Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

 

That is by definition an onboard video card. It is also called an integrated graphics chip, because it is on the motherboard itself. They both have the same meaning. It is not removable and therefore non-upgradeable. Completely useless to someone like me.

 

Hehe, You're funny.

 

Since you record audio, and I believe you do a bit of photoshopping too, from what I've read in your previous posts.

 

This computer isn't designed for you. It's designed for the new mac user who wants to listen to music, send out a few emails, etc. The little stuff. None of that. That's why they have higher end/more upgraded macs.

 

Quit pickin' on the little guy, okay? He's just doin' his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe, You're funny.

 

Since you record audio, and I believe you do a bit of photoshopping too, from what I've read in your previous posts.

 

This computer isn't designed for you. It's designed for the new mac user who wants to listen to music, send out a few emails, etc. The little stuff. None of that. That's why they have higher end/more upgraded macs.

 

Quit pickin' on the little guy, okay? He's just doin' his job.

 

Now there is a sensible answer. Actually I do heavy video encoding and audio editing. And the occasional gaming session as well. My problem is that there is no half way solution. I wouldn't mind a mac without a monitor that was mid range in performance. I wouldn't mind it if apple used desktop parts in their computers to bring down the cost. But they don't. Hence they don't have the kind of PC I'd rather buy. PC's are so wide spread because of a wide variety of manufacturers that can cater to all the different parts of the market easily. Having one, like apple, there's no way you can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a fanboy, and I have nothing to twist...you were wrong to begin with. I openly will admit Apple's faults and OS X's faults when someone actually trully takes the time to explain it out, without comparing it to how windows this and windows that, which is what I hate, and which is what makes me get offensive. Apple is not perfect...and a true non-fanboy user would know that...such as myself. However, talking about how they monopolize their computer market without realizing how much Microsoft monopolizes is just plain wrong.

 

They both monopolize 2 different markets. Apple monopolizes mac hardware, Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. A clear difference in that one is software, one is hardware. It's alot easier to get away from software then it is for hardware. Where else can you buy an apple clone? No where. Where can you buy a PC? From many vendors even building your own. And if I don't want windows on my pc to help keep microsoft's monopoly, I can install another OS quite easily. Remember they are 2 separate things.

 

first example...as a gamer...I'm guessing you already know that Halo 2 for PC's is only coming on Vista....even though its a Dx9 game only. Isn't that a major monopoly? I mean after all..Halo is the game that got the XBOX its fame right?

 

I'm quite aware of that. In fact there is already a petition to enable windows xp users to play it.

 

Second example...Songs that were previously purchased in Microsoft's MSN music library wil NOT play on the Zune...only DRM protected songs ( as well as your other MP3's) will play...isnt this a monopoly, for all those individuals who purchased songs legally from Microsoft's MSN library, only to have MS lock them out later?

 

Microsoft was only copying the Apple model. Use a drm that only works on portable players they sell. Plus I know that the DRM microsoft was previously using wouldn't have worked with that wireless sharing feature they put in.

 

Third example...many of the different editions of Vista don't have all the features of Windows Vista Ultimate, so individuals who are already paying significant cant amount for an operating system do not get everything they want the first time...isn't this a monopoly? especially when Apple offers everything in 1 version?

 

I'd rather pay less for features I don't need then pay for every single feature under the sun. Saves me money then.

 

Fourth example...Microsoft forces new users of Windows Vista with 2 proprietary softwares Internet Explorer 7, and Live search...isn't this a monopoly?

 

You don't have to use IE7 and you can change the default search provider to whatever one you want. You can use firefox without them stopping you at all, so no it's not a monopoly.

 

Fifth Example....Microsoft cripples any version of its software that it designs for other operating system. Take Office 2004 for example...it is no where as feature rich as what Office 2003 for Windows is...isnt this a monopoly?

 

Provide a list to prove what you're saying. Otherwise it's all hot air to me.

 

Sixth Example....Microsoft enforces the use of the video format AVI, and WMA on the Zune players...both of which are owned by them...isn't this a monopoly?

 

They also support other formats as well, so not a monopoly either. Here's the list:

 

Audio:

 

* Protected .WMA files purchased via Zune's marketplace)

* .MP3 (unprotected)

* .AAC (unprotected)

* .WMA (unprotected)

 

Videos:

 

* .WMV

* MPEG-4

* H.264

 

Photos:

 

* .JPEG/.JPG

 

More then what the ipod supports. Except for maybe apple lossless audio.

 

Seventh Example....Microsoft cripples MSN messenger on OS X....the most largest used instant messaging software....and if you saw the version for OS X...you would see how crippled Microsoft made it...isn't this a monopoly?

 

Not a monopoly when you can easily try other clients that are compatible with the protocol msn messenger uses, so no. Here's one right here you can check out.

 

Eighth Example....Micrsoft has the biggest monopoly with Internet expoloer...which has the most usage of any browzer out there...even though its features and security are not as powerful as Firefox's...or Opera's. Isn't this a MAJOR monopoly?

 

It's not an illegal monopoly technically. People just prefer IE for some reason. I don't understand it either as I like firefox myself. They probably use it because it came with their windows. But then isn't the same held true for Safari on the mac? Would you call that an illegal monopoly then? Of course not. And neither is this. Most people use what comes with their computers by default, that's all. You can't change consumer behavior easily.

 

Ninth Example...All major corporations use Windows as their operating system...even thouh it has numnerous holes and basically flaws...isnt this a MAJOR monopoly?

 

They prefer to because the major pc manufacturer's can keep up with their demand. You can have remote access enabled, auto updating, remote monitoring. The ability to create a single image and put it on thousands of PC's. There's a reason why they use windows pc's. It saves them time and money.

 

Tenth Example....In 1994, Microsoft offered IBM an $8 discount on each Windows 95 license if IBM would exclude mention of other operating systems in its marketing campaigns. The deal would have required IBM to abandon its own OS/2 operating system. IBM declined and began promoting its own application suite over Microsoft's. Microsoft then terminated negotiations. IBM received its license for Windows 95 only 15 minutes before the product launched, causing IBM to fall behind in back-to-school sales. Isn't this a monopoly?

 

Now this was a monopolistic move, yes. And was dealt with by the antitrust trial.

 

Eleventh Example...In 1995, Netscape didn't receive needed information about the underlying technology for Windows 95 until months after the operating system was released, excluding Netscape from most of the holiday selling season. Isn't this a monopoly?

 

Same answer as above.

 

Twelfth Example - In 1995 and early 1996, Compaq removed the MSN icon from the desktop of its consumer PC and replaced it with an icon for America Online's Internet service. The company also removed the icon for Internet Explorer in favor of Netscape Navigator. Microsoft sent a letter on May 31, 1996, to the company threatening to terminate Compaq's Windows 95 license. Compaq returned to its original desktop setting the next month. Isn't this a monopoly?

 

Same answer as above.

 

Thirteenth Example - In 1998, Microsoft got computer makers to agree that if they did not preinstall Windows 98 on their PCs, they would have to pay a higher price for the operating system. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson held that although this strategy helps combat piracy, it "makes it less likely that consumers will detect an increase in the price of Windows," and it helps make operating systems not installed by PC manufacturers less attractive. Isn't this a MAJOR monopoly?

 

Consumers are use to having an OS installed on their computer. And it's been changed now that an OS is required to be installed. Dell gets around this by installing freedos. I hope they offer linux soon. Ubuntu or Kubuntu would be good.

 

So dont talk as if Apple has the most monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly is even greater...infact far greater if you include the relevant history. People just dont konw this because of the market share value...which masks this effect...allowing Microsoft to slide by every single time. More and more consumers are realizing this...which is a good thing.

 

To me, hardware monopoly is always worse compared to a software monopoly. There is the wine project which aims to redo the api calls that windows has. You cannot do this with mac's. Apple forbids it. They'll sue you if you do.

 

An integrated graphics chip is NOT a video card. The term "Video card" is used to describe a physical expansion card that is located on the slots on a motherboard. Something that is soldered into the mobo as a chipset is NOT called a card. The Intel GMA900 and 950 are graphics "chips', not graphic "cards". The GMA950 does not take the physical dimentions of an actual card. So what I proved was that you were wrong...but the fact of the matter is you dont know how to admit that you made a typo the first time. Your trying to justify your mistake (if in fact you do have hardware knowledge as you claim).

 

Now this is just a game of semantics here. Get the language straight, on board video card = integrated graphics chipset. They're the same thing. If you're going to argue about this, you just want attention then. It's been like this for years. Get use to it.

 

It doesnt matter...the fact is you never knew that the cards were now clocked back to their normal speed. You (in your previous post) talked with a sense of knoledge as if Apple is still doing this...WHEN in fact they are NOT. The fact that Apple is even able to fit an X1600 in the slim form factor of the MBP is in itself a major accomplishment. Go and get me a link of a Dell, or a Toshiba, or even a Sony, with the same dimentions and thickness of the MBP...with an X1600. It will be extremely difficualt, if not impossible. You dont give credit where its due...but rather go on bashing Apple as if they underclocked the cards by 50% or something...when in fact it was only by a few Mhz clock speed and a few Mhz memory speed....which would cost you about 2-7fps max..when playing a game. Moreover, the Radeon X1600 was underclocked only because of Windows XP heating issues. It could be clocked back to normal under OS X (on the Core Duos), and would run just fine. It was becuase it was heating up under windows XP, that Apple had to make this move.

 

When I do something wrong, I admit to it. I admitted to it. But I still included that as a point that Apple cares more about the looks of the computer against the performance of it.

 

Nice try trying to cover up your past incorrect post. Apple's EFI update was included with Bootcamp. What you fail to mention is how easy Apple has made it to install Windows....while if you want to Install OS X(86) on the PC...you would have to get the hacked version....and then your still not guaranteed whether all your hardware will work, and will have to do extensive kext hunting on the internet to get your hardware to work near 100%. while on Bootcamp...your hardware is fully supported, from the iSight, to the Apple remote. So dont talk as if installing OS X on PC's is easier than installing Windows on Macs, when clearly its the other way around. Pricey hardware? Are you kidding me...if you want to game, your not going to game on a GeForce 7300, or a Radeon X1300....so assuming that...its not cheap on the PC side either buddy. And face it...gaming on Vista is pathetic so far, contrary to what Microsoft wants you to believe. I use XP only for gaming (a 10gb partition on my MBP), and thats all...for everything else, I use OS X. Only when games truly start cutting support for XP (which wont be in for another 4 years), then Ill move to vista for just gaming (still not going to dish out $400 for that though :P )

 

I don't have a problem with getting the hacked OS X version to install. I've used linux before, so I don't have a problem with getting problematic hardware to work properly. All that's really needed is drivers. Plus where are the newer video cards that are available for pc's on the mac pro? No can do their. Even if you get them, no drivers exist. Yet pc's have them. I can build a midrange pc with a quad core intel cpu that's not a xeon for less than what a mac pro would cost. Because I don't need to pay the higher price for the extra small performance the xeon would provide. That's what I meant by pricey hardware.

 

And once again, you needed an efi update in order to install vista when it came out. I needed no such bios update to install it. You lose.

 

I noticed you didn't respond to my other points. Does that mean you were wrong about them and I was right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to quote everything, as that would take too long. Yes, Apple monopolizes the hardware, and Microsoft Monopolizes the software market. They both do it....but I think that monopolizing the software market is much worse. Operating systms fall under the category of softwares, and this is the main reason why it is so. Apple's hardware is infact compatible with other operating systems. You could run Linux...OS X, or Windows XP, or Windows Vista, on a Mac now if you wanted. Therfore, becuase of the fact that you can do this...the monopoly that Apple is having wtih their hardware is not as strict as it seems. My point was to prove that Microsoft also monopolizes, regardless of whether its hardware or software...they still DO it. I think I made my point clear.

 

I undestand to you personally believe that hardware monopoly is worse than software monopoly...but I believe it to be the other way around...especially if Apple i clearly allowing other operating systems to be run on their hardware. I guess its a personal preference there so I'm not going to argue about that.

 

When I do something wrong, I admit to it. I admitted to it. But I still included that as a point that Apple cares more about the looks of the computer against the performance of it.

 

This sentece alone shows your anti-apple views. Tell me now?, how badly did Apple underclock the video cards? Not by much actually. Moreover, if the Processor was underclocked, then you could say that Apple looks at looks more than performance...but this clearly wasent the case. You are using a single handed argument of a piece of hardware that was barely slowed down....as your main attacking point. This is just simply rediculous. In that case I could say that a Dell XPS Inspiron series...concentrates on neither the performance nor the looks...becuase both of them are not as powerful as the Macboook's specs with similar price point (not the Pro, just the regular MB).

 

I don't have a problem with getting the hacked OS X version to install. I've used linux before, so I don't have a problem with getting problematic hardware to work properly. All that's really needed is drivers. Plus where are the newer video cards that are available for pc's on the mac pro? No can do their. Even if you get them, no drivers exist. Yet pc's have them. I can build a midrange pc with a quad core intel cpu that's not a xeon for less than what a mac pro would cost. Because I don't need to pay the higher price for the extra small performance the xeon would provide. That's what I meant by pricey hardware.

 

And once again, you needed an efi update in order to install vista when it came out. I needed no such bios update to install lose.

 

Yes, I will agree that the variety of video cards on the Mac hardware isnt as diverse as the ones on the PC side, I know that. However, there are various ranges of cards on the Mac hardware as well. Apple in their video card support have the low end cards (7300GT), midrange cards (X1600, 7600GT), and high end cards (Quadro FX 4500, X1900). I know that again is not as diverse as the PC side...but its not like its nothing. You clearly have a choice here. If Apple were only providing low end cards and no high end at all...then your point would be correct...but thats not the case thus far. Now tell me this...is the 8800GTX driver for Windows Vista or XP still fully stable yet...NO. My friend has an 8800GTS, and you wont believe the amount of hangs and crashes he gets when playing games. The driver support is no where near perfect on the PC side...regardless of whether its a video card, or anything else....and you know that. Again, your talking as if the drivers are designed perfectly for each device on the PC side...which cannot get farther from the truth. Vista's gaming performance thus far has been embarassing to be the least. I'm an avid flight simulator fan...and I was deeply let down by Flight Simulator X, after trying to move on from Flight Simulator 2004. This game was suppose to be the flagship game for WIndows Vista upon release...but totally flopped..and Microsoft is not commenting on this. THe performane on vista in gaming is horrible at the moment...so you cannot really say anything positive about the new operating system other than its looks (which BTW you wont care if you've used OS X).

 

I think you would also know that it is this very vast diverse selection of PC hardware and legacy support that makes the Windows operating system (aside user stupidity factor), so much vulnerable to exploits. In a way, Microsoft is shooting itself so to speak. Because of the closed hardware structure that Apple embraces, the chances of exploits on OS X are very much controlled, and agin, I never once heard you mention this fact. You were talking as if it was fully advantageous to use Windows becuase of the diverse hardware support...but failed to mention the consiquences of being vulnerable to viruses, and other malaware at the same time.

 

Also, I would like to bring in another point. Comparing a custom/home bult PC to that of a manufactured brand name one is just stupid at the least. Obviously its going to be cheaper. What you fail to mention here is that custom building your own PC is still much, much more cheaper than it is puchaisng from PC manufacturers themselves like Dell, HP, etc. I have my Macbook Pro as my main machine for university studies, design, etc. But I also have a custom bult gaming PC I put together for under $2000 which kicks ass at gaming. And it runs Windows XP, not Vista. So you see...I'm not a fanboy, and I am very open, but I just hate it when people try to point out even the smallest flaws of Apple (underclocking the GPU), and then downplay that as if its horribly gone wrong, and they all of a sudden choose form over function. Please.

 

And once again, you needed an efi update in order to install vista when it came out. I needed no such bios update to install it. You lose.

 

Umm...and tell me why EFI being lightyears more advanced than BIOS is a bad thing?. What Apple did was just add a downcompatible BIOS layer support for EFI, thats all. EFI can suport BIOS, thats the cool thing, its not like Apple from scratch created a new BIOS code. BIOS is considered ancient by modern standards...however Microsoft still choose to use BIOS in Windows Vista....even though they could have very well opted for the modern EFI.

 

I noticed you didn't respond to my other points. Does that mean you were wrong about them and I was right?

 

No, I just wanted to concentrate on the major facts thats all. If I bring in all the other things, it would sidetrack considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to quote everything, as that would take too long. Yes, Apple monopolizes the hardware, and Microsoft Monopolizes the software market. They both do it....but I think that monopolizing the software market is much worse. Operating systms fall under the category of softwares, and this is the main reason why it is so. Apple's hardware is infact compatible with other operating systems. You could run Linux...OS X, or Windows XP, or Windows Vista, on a Mac now if you wanted. Therfore, becuase of the fact that you can do this...the monopoly that Apple is having wtih their hardware is not as strict as it seems. My point was to prove that Microsoft also monopolizes, regardless of whether its hardware or software...they still DO it. I think I made my point clear.

 

I undestand to you personally believe that hardware monopoly is worse than software monopoly...but I believe it to be the other way around...especially if Apple i clearly allowing other operating systems to be run on their hardware. I guess its a personal preference there so I'm not going to argue about that.

 

When I do something wrong, I admit to it. I admitted to it. But I still included that as a point that Apple cares more about the looks of the computer against the performance of it.

 

This sentece alone shows your anti-apple views. Tell me now?, how badly did Apple underclock the video cards? Not by much actually. Moreover, if the Processor was underclocked, then you could say that Apple looks at looks more than performance...but this clearly wasent the case. You are using a single handed argument of a piece of hardware that was barely slowed down....as your main attacking point. This is just simply rediculous. In that case I could say that a Dell XPS Inspiron series...concentrates on neither the performance nor the looks...becuase both of them are not as powerful as the Macboook's specs with similar price point (not the Pro, just the regular MB).

 

I don't have a problem with getting the hacked OS X version to install. I've used linux before, so I don't have a problem with getting problematic hardware to work properly. All that's really needed is drivers. Plus where are the newer video cards that are available for pc's on the mac pro? No can do their. Even if you get them, no drivers exist. Yet pc's have them. I can build a midrange pc with a quad core intel cpu that's not a xeon for less than what a mac pro would cost. Because I don't need to pay the higher price for the extra small performance the xeon would provide. That's what I meant by pricey hardware.

 

And once again, you needed an efi update in order to install vista when it came out. I needed no such bios update to install lose.

 

Yes, I will agree that the variety of video cards on the Mac hardware isnt as diverse as the ones on the PC side, I know that. However, there are various ranges of cards on the Mac hardware as well. Apple in their video card support have the low end cards (7300GT), midrange cards (X1600, 7600GT), and high end cards (Quadro FX 4500, X1900). I know that again is not as diverse as the PC side...but its not like its nothing. You clearly have a choice here. If Apple were only providing low end cards and no high end at all...then your point would be correct...but thats not the case thus far. Now tell me this...is the 8800GTX driver for Windows Vista or XP still fully stable yet...NO. My friend has an 8800GTS, and you wont believe the amount of hangs and crashes he gets when playing games. The driver support is no where near perfect on the PC side...regardless of whether its a video card, or anything else....and you know that. Again, your talking as if the drivers are designed perfectly for each device on the PC side...which cannot get farther from the truth. Vista's gaming performance thus far has been embarassing to be the least. I'm an avid flight simulator fan...and I was deeply let down by Flight Simulator X, after trying to move on from Flight Simulator 2004. This game was suppose to be the flagship game for WIndows Vista upon release...but totally flopped..and Microsoft is not commenting on this. THe performane on vista in gaming is horrible at the moment...so you cannot really say anything positive about the new operating system other than its looks (which BTW you wont care if you've used OS X).

 

I think you would also know that it is this very vast diverse selection of PC hardware and legacy support that makes the Windows operating system (aside user stupidity factor), so much vulnerable to exploits. In a way, Microsoft is shooting itself so to speak. Because of the closed hardware structure that Apple embraces, the chances of exploits on OS X are very much controlled, and agin, I never once heard you mention this fact. You were talking as if it was fully advantageous to use Windows becuase of the diverse hardware support...but failed to mention the consiquences of being vulnerable to viruses, and other malaware at the same time.

 

Also, I would like to bring in another point. Comparing a custom/home bult PC to that of a manufactured brand name one is just stupid at the least. Obviously its going to be cheaper. What you fail to mention here is that custom building your own PC is still much, much more cheaper than it is puchaisng from PC manufacturers themselves like Dell, HP, etc. I have my Macbook Pro as my main machine for university studies, design, etc. But I also have a custom bult gaming PC I put together for under $2000 which kicks ass at gaming. And it runs Windows XP, not Vista. So you see...I'm not a fanboy, and I am very open, but I just hate it when people try to point out even the smallest flaws of Apple (underclocking the GPU), and then downplay that as if its horribly gone wrong, and they all of a sudden choose form over function. Please.

 

And once again, you needed an efi update in order to install vista when it came out. I needed no such bios update to install it. You lose.

 

Umm...and tell me why EFI being lightyears more advanced than BIOS is a bad thing?. What Apple did was just add a downcompatible BIOS layer support for EFI, thats all. EFI can suport BIOS, thats the cool thing, its not like Apple from scratch created a new BIOS code. BIOS is considered ancient by modern standards...however Microsoft still choose to use BIOS in Windows Vista....even though they could have very well opted for the modern EFI.

 

I noticed you didn't respond to my other points. Does that mean you were wrong about them and I was right?

 

No, I just wanted to concentrate on the major facts thats all. If I bring in all the other things, it would sidetrack considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to quote everything, as that would take too long. Yes, Apple monopolizes the hardware, and Microsoft Monopolizes the software market. They both do it....but I think that monopolizing the software market is much worse. Operating systms fall under the category of softwares, and this is the main reason why it is so. Apple's hardware is infact compatible with other operating systems. You could run Linux...OS X, or Windows XP, or Windows Vista, on a Mac now if you wanted. Therfore, becuase of the fact that you can do this...the monopoly that Apple is having wtih their hardware is not as strict as it seems. My point was to prove that Microsoft also monopolizes, regardless of whether its hardware or software...they still DO it. I think I made my point clear.

 

I undestand to you personally believe that hardware monopoly is worse than software monopoly...but I believe it to be the other way around...especially if Apple i clearly allowing other operating systems to be run on their hardware. I guess its a personal preference there so I'm not going to argue about that.

 

The only difference in apple's hardware now is the motherboard and the psu. Everything else pc's have. So why should apple be allowed to have a monopoly on their hardware? It means higher prices because of no competition in the mac maker market. As for microsoft still monopolizing, you can avoid that completely by running linux like ubunutu. How can you counter apple's monopoly? You can't. Atleast not legally.

 

This sentece alone shows your anti-apple views. Tell me now?, how badly did Apple underclock the video cards? Not by much actually. Moreover, if the Processor was underclocked, then you could say that Apple looks at looks more than performance...but this clearly wasent the case. You are using a single handed argument of a piece of hardware that was barely slowed down....as your main attacking point. This is just simply rediculous. In that case I could say that a Dell XPS Inspiron series...concentrates on neither the performance nor the looks...becuase both of them are not as powerful as the Macboook's specs with similar price point (not the Pro, just the regular MB).

Yes, I will agree that the variety of video cards on the Mac hardware isnt as diverse as the ones on the PC side, I know that. However, there are various ranges of cards on the Mac hardware as well. Apple in their video card support have the low end cards (7300GT), midrange cards (X1600, 7600GT), and high end cards (Quadro FX 4500, X1900). I know that again is not as diverse as the PC side...but its not like its nothing. You clearly have a choice here. If Apple were only providing low end cards and no high end at all...then your point would be correct...but thats not the case thus far. Now tell me this...is the 8800GTX driver for Windows Vista or XP still fully stable yet...NO. My friend has an 8800GTS, and you wont believe the amount of hangs and crashes he gets when playing games. The driver support is no where near perfect on the PC side...regardless of whether its a video card, or anything else....and you know that. Again, your talking as if the drivers are designed perfectly for each device on the PC side...which cannot get farther from the truth. Vista's gaming performance thus far has been embarassing to be the least. I'm an avid flight simulator fan...and I was deeply let down by Flight Simulator X, after trying to move on from Flight Simulator 2004. This game was suppose to be the flagship game for WIndows Vista upon release...but totally flopped..and Microsoft is not commenting on this. THe performane on vista in gaming is horrible at the moment...so you cannot really say anything positive about the new operating system other than its looks (which BTW you wont care if you've used OS X).

 

Anything that effects me from using the full performance of the hardware I buy I don't want. Yes there is tons of problems with nvidia's 8800 gpu based video card. In fact there is a class action suit that might be started against them. And there is always ati that when their directx 10 graphics card comes out you can go with them instead of getting an 8800 gpu based video card. And nvidia will learn its lesson when it loses so many customers because of this. And this is what competition brings. Quality. I like competition. You can always easily clone software. All you need is time. Can't easily clone hardware without spending alot of money.

 

I think you would also know that it is this very vast diverse selection of PC hardware and legacy support that makes the Windows operating system (aside user stupidity factor), so much vulnerable to exploits. In a way, Microsoft is shooting itself so to speak. Because of the closed hardware structure that Apple embraces, the chances of exploits on OS X are very much controlled, and agin, I never once heard you mention this fact. You were talking as if it was fully advantageous to use Windows becuase of the diverse hardware support...but failed to mention the consiquences of being vulnerable to viruses, and other malaware at the same time.

 

Vulnerability to viruses/trojans/spyware/adware/etc is not because of the hardware. In fact 99% of the hardware apple uses is the same hardware that pc's have that run windows. All they provide is the motherboard and psu. Everything else is the same. That's it. And you know that these kind of vulnerabilities are software based, not hardware. That makes you look so stupid right there. Thank you. Cause you got it totally backwards right there in trying to defend apple's monopoly on it's mac hardware.

 

Also, I would like to bring in another point. Comparing a custom/home bult PC to that of a manufactured brand name one is just stupid at the least. Obviously its going to be cheaper. What you fail to mention here is that custom building your own PC is still much, much more cheaper than it is puchaisng from PC manufacturers themselves like Dell, HP, etc. I have my Macbook Pro as my main machine for university studies, design, etc. But I also have a custom bult gaming PC I put together for under $2000 which kicks ass at gaming. And it runs Windows XP, not Vista. So you see...I'm not a fanboy, and I am very open, but I just hate it when people try to point out even the smallest flaws of Apple (underclocking the GPU), and then downplay that as if its horribly gone wrong, and they all of a sudden choose form over function. Please.

 

Yep, and that was exactly my point. That is why I like pc's because I can build them on my own and still run Windows legally. I can't build my own mac to run OS X, legally atleast.

 

Umm...and tell me why EFI being lightyears more advanced than BIOS is a bad thing?. What Apple did was just add a downcompatible BIOS layer support for EFI, thats all. EFI can suport BIOS, thats the cool thing, its not like Apple from scratch created a new BIOS code. BIOS is considered ancient by modern standards...however Microsoft still choose to use BIOS in Windows Vista....even though they could have very well opted for the modern EFI.

 

Well efi does have bios compatibility in it. And apple did on purpose remove that. Until people demanded they put it back in. But even then they didn't put it all back in. That's why you had to update the efi to allow you to boot Windows Vista with it. I did read about ibm developing a full bios emulation as an efi application. I hope that goes through.

 

No, I just wanted to concentrate on the major facts thats all. If I bring in all the other things, it would sidetrack considerably.

 

Nice to see you like to avoid things that you lose the argument on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only difference in apple's hardware now is the motherboard and the psu. Everything else pc's have. So why should apple be allowed to have a monopoly on their hardware? It means higher prices because of no competition in the mac maker market. As for microsoft still monopolizing, you can avoid that completely by running linux like ubunutu. How can you counter apple's monopoly? You can't. Atleast not legally.

 

Thats the most retarted thing I've heard so far. Many users dont even know how to use Windows XP fully yet...in which your given complete GUI. How the hell is the majority suppose to use an beginner unfriendly OS like Linux. Ubuntu and any other distro of Linux dont even have complete driver support...your talking like thats a honest backup thats avaliable to many consumers. Linux is meant only for the more advanced users, not for the common user.

 

Anything that effects me from using the full performance of the hardware I buy I don't want. Yes there is tons of problems with nvidia's 8800 gpu based video card. In fact there is a class action suit that might be started against them. And there is always ati that when their directx 10 graphics card comes out you can go with them instead of getting an 8800 gpu based video card. And nvidia will learn its lesson when it loses so many customers because of this. And this is what competition brings. Quality. I like competition. You can always easily clone software. All you need is time. Can't easily clone hardware without spending alot of money.

 

In that case, Vista shoudl be the last thing on your mind right? Poor gaming performance, stability issues, lack of complete drivers all make your hardware not perform to their fullest. As for the cloning part....I have yet to see Microsoft come up with a properly copied apple software. Everything that they design is either feature incomplete, or just plain half assed. Who says you cant easily clone hardware? go and google for Alienware clones, and you'll see what I mean.

 

ulnerability to viruses/trojans/spyware/adware/etc is not because of the hardware. In fact 99% of the hardware apple uses is the same hardware that pc's have that run windows. All they provide is the motherboard and psu. Everything else is the same. That's it. And you know that these kind of vulnerabilities are software based, not hardware. That makes you look so stupid right there. Thank you. Cause you got it totally backwards right there in trying to defend apple's monopoly on it's mac hardware.

 

Umm..thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Obvious. If you read what I wrote properly, what I said was that because there is more hardware for Windows to support, there has to be more drivers written for it...and drivers are SOFTWARE, which means there are more holes because of having an increased support for hardware. Apple's hardware is limited, and not as vast...so their security is much tighter. Your the one who sounded stupid there, and validated that stupidity by stating something thats completely obvious, when infact you completey missed the underlining meaning of what I was trying to imply. Typical close-minded windows fanboy way of thinking; When you have nothing to say...bring in the totally backwards argument...and try to make a point of out that. sheesh.

 

 

Nice to see you like to avoid things that you lose the argument on.

 

When you sound this close minded...there is no point whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this thread should be called "pyrates VS EFI".. :P keep the discussion on a light tone mates, ok?

 

My apologies if I sounded too harsh. :D I was only trying to disprove a blatently common misconception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats the most retarted thing I've heard so far. Many users dont even know how to use Windows XP fully yet...in which your given complete GUI. How the hell is the majority suppose to use an beginner unfriendly OS like Linux. Ubuntu and any other distro of Linux dont even have complete driver support...your talking like thats a honest backup thats avaliable to many consumers. Linux is meant only for the more advanced users, not for the common user.

Yes, very true, many people don't fully know how to use Xp, and really don't need to. Linux is only unfriendly if you fool around with your PC, and stuff like that. If Joe 6-pack gets a new Dell preloaded with Ubuntum he doesn't need to worry about driver support, as it will be preconfigured. I doubt he needs to worry about adding any hardware. The rest of it, well, if Dell enables some type of Automatix system, with DVD playback legitimately, Flash and Java, Ubuntu Software update will take care of the rest. Linux is not meant for the more advanced users, it's quite usable, and quite easy for commoners running a debian distro under Gnome. Also, remember, linux is just a kernel, and in theory could run in an OS just like Windows, it's just the presentation. Just because distros aren't satisfactory right now, doesn't mean the kernel is flawed for average users.

 

In that case, Vista shoudl be the last thing on your mind right? Poor gaming performance, stability issues, lack of complete drivers all make your hardware not perform to their fullest. As for the cloning part....I have yet to see Microsoft come up with a properly copied apple software. Everything that they design is either feature incomplete, or just plain half assed. Who says you cant easily clone hardware? go and google for Alienware clones, and you'll see what I mean.

How are you any less of a fanboy after that statement? What you call "half-assed", and "improper", is simply a subjective statement of your opinion. And you can't properly clone Apple hardware. Anyway, on drivers, a poorly coded Windows driver for a next gen card that Mac doesn't support yet will still perform better than the crappy 7300GT in the iMac. Really, at the iMac price, there are PCs with much higher graphics power. I can get a Dell with SLI at that price.

 

Umm..thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Obvious. If you read what I wrote properly, what I said was that because there is more hardware for Windows to support, there has to be more drivers written for it...and drivers are SOFTWARE, which means there are more holes because of having an increased support for hardware. Apple's hardware is limited, and not as vast...so their security is much tighter. Your the one who sounded stupid there

Hate to burst your bubble, but now you sound like the stupid one. Apparently, you don't quite understand how this works. Hardware support comes from a standard type of system that each OS handles it. Windows is plagued by stability problems, from various things such as 3rd party drivers, although, I've had no stability problems by just using my brain. HARDWARE support has NOTHING to do with security. Supporting a plethora of graphics cards has nothing to do with the integrity of the system. How many viruses do you see that do their damage by masquerading in the hardware subsystem? Next to none. There's a set standard, and that's how it works. Viruses would either have to be driver specific, or designed for the Hardware subsystem (Which is no more vulnerable than OS X), for hardware support to be the problem. Your logic here is severely flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows is plagued by stability problems, from various things such as 3rd party drivers....Viruses would either have to be driver specific

 

 

Was I speaking In a foreign language before or something? Seriously. Ok, let me explain this in a clear and concise way. Windows has more drivers than OS X. Thats a known fact. If you have more drivers, then you have more options for driver specific exploitation, am I correct? Mac OS has very few drivers when compared to Windows, becuase Apple has a controlled set of hardware, and thats it. So therfore which OS is more easy to create viruses, and malaware? That Is what I'm trying to say (I'm trying to explain this in a calm manner...) You can very well create a driver specific exploit for network cards, and wirless acess routers...which btw fall under the category of hardware.

 

 

What you call "half-assed", and "improper", is simply a subjective statement of your opinion.

 

 

Really? Here are a few things Microsoft attempted, but did not suceed. I've included not only from software, but hardware designs as well.

 

1. Zune

2. Windows Sidebar

3. Windows Desktop Search

4. Windows Movie Maker

5. Windows DVD Maker

6. Aero

7. Zune Media Player Software

8. User prompt for core acess (canel or allow)

9. Windows Picture Gallery

10. "Hello From Seattle"

11. " Welcome to the Social" (wtf kind of slogan is this?)

12. Gadgets

 

...Just to name a few

 

However, I will give give credit to Microsoft where its deserved:

 

1. Windows Media Center > Front Row

 

 

Yes, very true, many people don't fully know how to use Xp, and really don't need to. Linux is only unfriendly if you fool around with your PC, and stuff like that. If Joe 6-pack gets a new Dell preloaded with Ubuntum he doesn't need to worry about driver support, as it will be preconfigured. I doubt he needs to worry about adding any hardware. The rest of it, well, if Dell enables some type of Automatix system, with DVD playback legitimately, Flash and Java, Ubuntu Software update will take care of the rest. Linux is not meant for the more advanced users, it's quite usable, and quite easy for commoners running a debian distro under Gnome. Also, remember, linux is just a kernel, and in theory could run in an OS just like Windows, it's just the presentation. Just because distros aren't satisfactory right now, doesn't mean the kernel is flawed for average users.

 

Individuals (especially the average Joe) want familiarity with softwares, when they try to switch OS'es, atleast to some degree. Don't get me wrong, Linux is an awesome operating system (for advanced users like myself...I very much enjoy the flexibility), but the problem is driver support mate. You'r correct, in theory it could run like Windows XP, heck it even has the potential of emulating OS X right down to the GUI and functionality...but thats not quite how it is in reality. Many of the closed source softwares are not avaliable for Linux. If you were to go from Windows to OS X...you still have softwares that will be avaliable in OS X...that you were using in Windows, so the chances of an individual getting lost in the transition is slim (though still there, I'm not going to deny that). This transition I believe is much rougher for moving to Linux. The best company that I can think of right now that provides great support for Linux is Mozilla corporation (Firefox). They actually have a dedicated Linux team to help the project going on the platform...but thats not the case with a lot of other software makers. ATI, especially is a notorious player in providing proper support for Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was I speaking In a foreign language before or something? Seriously. Ok, let me explain this in a clear and concise way. Windows has more drivers than OS X. Thats a known fact. If you have more drivers, then you have more options for driver specific exploitation, am I correct? Mac OS has very few drivers when compared to Windows, becuase Apple has a controlled set of hardware, and thats it. So therfore which OS is more easy to create viruses, and malaware? That Is what I'm trying to say (I'm trying to explain this in a calm manner...) You can very well create a driver specific exploit for network cards, and wirless acess routers...which btw fall under the category of hardware

NO, You've very incorrect. Windows only loads the drivers that it is using, and they all follow the same subsystem, which makes it no more vulnerable than any other OS that uses drivers. This is such a false statement, I don't know what else to say to it.

 

Really? Here are a few things Microsoft attempted, but did not suceed. I've included not only from software, but hardware designs as well.

No again. Until you give me reviews from a non biased "in my opinion" source, that actually goes in detail to each feature, I will revise the list.

 

1. Zune > iPod in features, iPod only has name recognition, and more models, Zune beats iPod video big time (and no, the PS3 priced iPhone doesn't count)

2. Windows Sidebar = Dashboard

3. Windows Desktop Search > Spotlight

4. Windows Movie Maker < iMovie (NOT PART OF OS X)

5. Windows DVD Maker < iDVD (NOT PART OF OS X)

6. Aero > Aqua Haha, yea right. First of all, this is a subjective area, but Vista's implementation of Aero is supeior to Tiger's implementation of Aqua on a technical level.

7. Zune Media Player Software > iTunes WTF, you must be a fanboy. Granted, Zune doesn't support OS X, but that's no big deal. Zune supports a far wider range of formats, conversions, and the like, and runs off of WMP. Zune's software also is better at managing larger libraries. Let me know when iTunes supports even close to the codecs Zune does.

8. User prompt for core acess (canel or allow) ? User prompt for root access. Windows allows you to give easier root access to any legacy, or current Application that wants it here, OS X is still foggy here, and by design, makes apps run around root access. This does cause some hinderance for OS X apps, but I might give OS X the edge.

9. Windows Picture Gallery = iPhoto (NOT IN OS X)

10. "Hello From Seattle" != " Designed by Apple in California" Retarded and irrelevant, you must be one of those people who jizzes when they see the Apple logo.

11. " Welcome to the Social" (wtf kind of slogan is this?) != Just the Apple logo Irrelevant

12. Gadgets < Widgets Yep, Widgets are more advanced, I'll say that, but at the same time, Gadgets are easier to create.

 

You can't include the PAYED suite of Apple iLife in this comparison. Just because it comes with new macs, it's not part of OS X. You typically have to upgrade every so often, and most people don't buy a new mac every year. Thus, that logic is flawed. So I could include nice paid apps for Windows in there.

 

Individuals (especially the average Joe) want familiarity with softwares, when they try to switch OS'es, atleast to some degree. Don't get me wrong, Linux is an awesome operating system (for advanced users like myself...I very much enjoy the flexibility), but the problem is driver support mate. You'r correct, in theory it could run like Windows XP, heck it even has the potential of emulating OS X right down to the GUI and functionality...but thats not quite how it is in reality. Many of the closed source softwares are not avaliable for Linux. If you were to go from Windows to OS X...you still have softwares that will be avaliable in OS X...that you were using in Windows, so the chances of an individual getting lost in the transition is slim (though still there, I'm not going to deny that). This transition I believe is much rougher for moving to Linux. The best company that I can think of right now that provides great support for Linux is Mozilla corporation (Firefox). They actually have a dedicated Linux team to help the project going on the platform...but thats not the case with a lot of other software makers. ATI, especially is a notorious player in providing proper support for Linux.

For the last goddamn time, Linux supports most pnp devices (ipods) for example. Anything internal, AVG joe won't switch. ATI simply would not get used unless it was configured from the get-go. Windows to OS X, you'df have to repurchase, and Paralells and Windows is the same as VMWare and Windows in linux. Still both too hard for the average joe. The only things that OS X and Windows have that linux doesn't fully replace is commercial software. Most of Average Joe's tasks, actually, all of them, can be handled with ease out of the box. For those who buy a printer with bad linux support. Turboprint www.turboprint.de, is still far cheaper than an OS X license or Windows license, let alone the cost of a Mac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive provided links from Paul Thurrot (one of the biggest windows fanboys and well known IT professional)

 

The quotes are from here:

 

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/zune.asp

1. Zune > iPod in features, iPod only has name recognition, and more models, Zune beats iPod video big time (and no, the PS3 priced iPhone doesn't count)

 

You forgot to mention that the wifi on the zune is useless and only used for transferring songs...when its capabilities of the technology is far greater. Microsoft cut it short. Add to that its bigger, much thicker, and more heavier than the iPod, and has a worse battery life than the Ipod. If Microsoft really wanted to attack Apple, they would have made the Zune be able to play songs purchased from the iTunes music library...heck the Zune cant even play songs purchased from its own WIndows Media Online Services.

 

 

2. Windows Sidebar = Dashboard

 

You must be pretty ignorant and a fanstastic windows fanboy to say that Windows sidebar is equal to dashboard. There is a good reason why I said dashboard is much better. Windows sidebar slows down the system upon startup, and shutdown, and is literally a suicide if you want to play games. Plus its useless when its there all the time...taking up precious desktop space. Dashboard floats on its own window layer...so you can call it, and then hide it on the fly....you CANNOT do this with Windows Sidebar. Its there no matter what (unless you want to disable it altogether). This is what I meant by doing a half ass job to Microsoft.

 

 

3. Windows Desktop Search > Spotlight

 

From Paul Thurott:

 

One of the most impressive features in Windows Vista--assuming of course you didn't notice Apple added it first to Mac OS X over a year and a half ago--is instant search.

 

Spotlight is more superiour to WDS anyday. Plus as mentioned...apple added that long time ago..wheras Windows Vista only implemented that now...making it look like they copied Apple. Your in denial thats all. You just have a grudge against OS X purely and simply.

 

 

4. Windows Movie Maker

5. Windows DVD Maker

9. Windows Picture Gallery = iPhoto (NOT IN OS X)

 

The point here is what you get when you get a new Mac or PC. Its what you get out of the "box" that matters. Apple clearly does better in this than Microsoft does. Care to argue that?

 

6. Aero > Aqua Haha, yea right. First of all, this is a subjective area, but Vista's implementation of Aero is supeior to Tiger's implementation of Aqua on a technical level.

 

 

Technical level as in the amount of hardware power required to run each engine? If thats the case....umm..Vista loses again. Aero requires 128mb of VRAM....Aqua's QE only requires 32MB. What was your point anyways...or were you just trying to state something, but could not back it up?

 

 

7. Zune Media Player Software > iTunes WTF, you must be a fanboy. Granted, Zune doesn't support OS X, but that's no big deal. Zune supports a far wider range of formats, conversions, and the like, and runs off of WMP. Zune's software also is better at managing larger libraries. Let me know when iTunes supports even close to the codecs Zune does.

 

From Paul Thurott:

 

The painful process of installing and configuring your Zune will serve as a helpful preview to the pain you're about to experience trying to use the device and its sub-par PC software interface. Annoyingly also called Zune, the Zune software is quite clearly just a different front-end to Windows Media Player 11 (see my review), but missing many of that software's best features. And that's tragic, because Microsoft might have made a good argument for wanting to try and make a much simpler software solution than WMP11. But the Zune software just feels empty and incomplete, a fact that is made all the more obvious the more familiar you are with WMP11.

 

You can start and pause content playback with the Space key. (This is a feature iTunes offers but WMP, even in version 11, does not.) Along the top of the application window is a toolbar of sorts with various, vague-looking icons. There's no proper menu bar per se, but you can view Zune's menu--which appears as a pop-up menu--by tapping the ALT key.

 

Unlike the iPod, the Zune doesn't support Audible-compatible (or any other kind of) audio books, video games, downloadable movies, TV shows, music videos, and other video content, or podcasts. In fact, the only kind of commercial content that Zune supports at all is music, which is all well and good, but with iPods migrating into all-in-one multimedia devices, the Zune seems decidedly old-school.

 

And plus you try to avoid the main argumnet, which was about the two softwares regarding usability and interface, and then you move on to the codecs supported. For your information. The iPod supports the industry best codecs...they dont need to support all the low bitrate, and less common codecs. AAC, MP4, MP3, and MOV is all you need, not all the sub par WMV, WMA, AVI, etc, etc. Sitck to the main argument next time.

 

 

 

8. User prompt for core acess (canel or allow) ? User prompt for root access. Windows allows you to give easier root access to any legacy, or current Application that wants it here, OS X is still foggy here, and by design, makes apps run around root access. This does cause some hinderance for OS X apps, but I might give OS X the edge.

 

 

 

 

10. "Hello From Seattle" != " Designed by Apple in California" Retarded and irrelevant, you must be one of those people who jizzes when they see the Apple logo.

 

From Paul Thurott:

 

Zune devices are packaged in Spartan, Apple-like boxes that don't utilize the Microsoft name or logo, unless you look at the small bottom side (likewise, the Zune Web site and advertisements downplay the Microsoft name in startling ways, given the company's name recognition). There was a joke video that made the rounds earlier this year, showing what iPod packaging would look like if Microsoft marketed the device (the video was made, ironically, by a Microsoft employee) and clearly the Zune team was aware of the problem. So the Zune packaging doesn't look anything like a Microsoft product. In fact, it looks exactly like an Apple product. Exactly. Like. An. Apple. Product.

 

Not exactly int the same context, but you can see that Microsoft clearly attemped this.

 

 

11. " Welcome to the Social" (wtf kind of slogan is this?) != Just the Apple logo Irrelevant

 

From Paul Thurott"

 

The "Welcome to the social" tagline is clearly meant to evoke the grammatically questionable yet enduringly homey "Think Different" campaign that Apple waged half a decade ago for the Mac. This is just one of dozens of Zune-related examples of Microsoft's Apple envy leading to outright and wholesale idea copying. To be fair, it's also one of the more subtle examples. Somehow, that fact just makes it feel dirtier.

 

Oh I think its pretty relevant all right.

 

12. Gadgets

 

Thats got to be the most lamest justification ever. Who the hell cares if Gadgets are easier to create...if they are not as advanced, and dont look even remotely as good as Widgets? You just further verified the point that Microsoft creates an easier developer platform, but the outcome is not as functional nor look visually as good as Apple's developer implementations.

 

You can't include the PAYED suite of Apple iLife in this comparison. Just because it comes with new macs, it's not part of OS X. You typically have to upgrade every so often, and most people don't buy a new mac every year. Thus, that logic is flawed. So I could include nice paid apps for Windows in there.

 

Paid apps..yes...nice...hell no. And just to let you know...Windows DVD Maker does not come in all editions of Vista either. LIke I posted far above...we are strictly speaking of "out of the box" experience...not including the upgrading route. If that were the case, I could point of several more Vista shortcomings.

 

For the last goddamn time, Linux supports most pnp devices (ipods) for example. Anything internal, AVG joe won't switch. ATI simply would not get used unless it was configured from the get-go. Windows to OS X, you'df have to repurchase, and Paralells and Windows is the same as VMWare and Windows in linux. Still both too hard for the average joe. The only things that OS X and Windows have that linux doesn't fully replace is commercial software. Most of Average Joe's tasks, actually, all of them, can be handled with ease out of the box. For those who buy a printer with bad linux support. Turboprint www.turboprint.de, is still far cheaper than an OS X license or Windows license, let alone the cost of a Mac.

 

How many people do you think would use Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint. A LOT of people. These are the first three softwares that comes into the mind of most average joe type consumers. These are not avaliable for Linux. Please dont give be that {censored} about OpenOffice. Yes its good...but not as feature full as Microsoft Office. Face it, most people dont want to ditch the familiarity wtih softwares...if they did, trust me, the windows market share would just plunge.

 

 

Your just in pure denial thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×