What do you think of Apple Macintosh computers?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by EW105, Jan 28, 2006.

  1. EW105

    EW105 Guest

    I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    computer and didn't like it?
    With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    for a pc?
    thanks
     
    EW105, Jan 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. EW105

    philo Guest

    "EW105" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    > and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    > Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    > point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    > computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    > to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    > for a pc?
    > thanks



    With a PC you get considerably better performance for the amount of money
    spent...
    but of course Windows-based machines are less secure than a MAC.

    What I do is use both Linux and Windows on my PC's.
    I use Linux mainly for internet etc so don't have to worry too much about
    the security issues
     
    philo, Jan 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. EW105

    Deano Guest

    EW105 wrote:
    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the
    > beginning and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and
    > discussed this with Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but
    > now I'd like the other point of view, if any pc users have looked
    > into getting an Apple computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make
    > sense to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs
    > available than for a pc?
    > thanks


    I've considered it but everytime I've tried using a Mac it's just felt so
    alien and uncomfortable. The OS has never seemed that fast either and I've
    played with the faster Macs. I guess windoze has taken too insidious a hold
    on my mind. If I were to generalise, I would say a Mac is fine for very
    general use i.e basic Office apps plus internet, or the more specialised pro
    video/music/dtp apps where it tends to have the upperhand.

    As a computer enthusiast I think the PC is the way to go. Also if you know
    what you're doing and take sensible precautions you're not likely to run
    into viruses and other nasties that often. The inherent security problems
    in Windows is another matter of course but many do seem to be of the "the
    user must visit a specially crafted webpage..." thus reducing the real-world
    effect of these vulnerabilities.

    The other thing you lose by such a switch is full compatibility with PCs -
    workwise that's not something I could ever accept. The clients I work with
    use Windows and do my colleagues.

    And of course you don't have to be running Windows on a PC, so the
    comparisons get more complicated. Overall though the PC is more hackable,
    has more applications and represents better bang for your buck IMO. Plus
    you have to take the new Intel-based Macs into account so that's going to
    change things in the coming months.
     
    Deano, Jan 28, 2006
    #3
  4. EW105

    Frosty Guest

    What trick, what device, what starting-hole on Sat, 28 Jan 2006
    09:19:17 -0500, canst thou now find out, to hide EW105 <>
    from this open and apparent shame?:

    >I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the

    beginning
    >and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this

    with
    >Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the

    other
    >point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    >computer and didn't like it?
    >With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    >cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make

    sense
    >to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    >for a pc?
    >thanks


    I have a friend who just couldn't seem to make his PC work.
    He wasn't of a mind to operate the dang thing. Too make drivers to
    load and whatnot.
    He also couldn't figure out his ISP.

    I suggested he get a Mac & AOL and he's not VERY happy with his
    online/computer experiences! (But he now sends me tons of forwarded
    crap in email with a zillion other peoples emails showing and virus
    warnings &c. I've had to plonk his ass!
    --

    "The Borg assimilated my race, and all I got was this crummy tagline."
     
    Frosty, Jan 28, 2006
    #4
  5. EW105

    www.seph.ca Guest

    yeah?

    try googling "mac security issues"

    I always find that old standby trite and untrue.

    People who harp on about security issues are
    a: generally woefully under-informed, under-protected
    b: neurotic in every facet of their daily life

    A mac is a mac is a mac
    A pc by any other name would smell just as sweet

    Pc's
    You can get anything you need for a pc
    You have any goal, you can go out and easily find software that can do the
    task by download, purchase, or shareware.
    Everyone one you know has one.

    Mac's
    Try to remember that we have been hearing the same mac bullshit for over
    10-12 years now...
    Comparing pros and cons of the two mediums mostly based on arguments made
    during the infancy of speedy 386's and win 3.1 are hardly persuasive over
    time.

    Most home mac users are so ignorant of a mac's workings that they slop
    filled drives and their fave word processor/snood type games.

    PC users have the advantage of having lived through Win98, and therefor can
    now consider themselves honorary accredited microsoft technicians, their
    valued expertise filling many a newsgroup with blather and chatter, and
    every store tech, customer service agent, help desk from the Phillipines to
    Timbuktu will never say "I don't know" because these days everyone thinks
    they know everything.

    They don't.

    my 2 cents

    ~S~




    > but of course Windows-based machines are less secure than a MAC.
    >
    > What I do is use both Linux and Windows on my PC's.
    > I use Linux mainly for internet etc so don't have to worry too much about
    > the security issues
     
    www.seph.ca, Jan 28, 2006
    #5
  6. EW105

    Vanguard Guest

    "EW105" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    > and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    > Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    > point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    > computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    > to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    > for a pc?
    > thanks



    Stop looking at the solution backwards. Based on your critical and
    important tasks, decide what applications best fit the requirements for
    those tasks. Then find which platforms on which those critical and
    important applications will run. Use the platform best suited for the task
    and application. Don't go picking an OS and then try to figure out if it
    was the right choice. Do you buy some fancy new player to only then check
    if there is actually any media usable by that player (unless you enjoy the
    bleeding edge with the incumbent risks and tribulations)? However, if your
    requirements dictate a Unix platform rather than a Windows platform, there
    is no need to waste time going with Mac OS/X since there are plenty of other
    cheaper Unix OS'es to go with.

    Reasons why I've never bothered going to or stay with a Mac:
    - Dearth of software titles, especially specialty, vertical, or business
    software. For example, WinRunner is the top automated test tool but doesn't
    support Mac. I'm involved in a personal project to write a point-of-sale
    and accounting software and I won't waste my time writing it for the tiny
    market share of the Mac. Where's the money to be made for end-user and
    business software? If I need to port the product, it will be to Linux and
    not specifically the Mac.
    - Pricier hardware. Some is nearly equivalently priced but too much is
    higher priced.
    - Dearth of vendors supporting the platform.
    - No reason to pay for their Unix OS (OS/X) when so many are free, cheaper,
    or have a larger and more active community from which to cull support.
    - I don't buy prebuilt computers. I build my own. Easier and cheaper to
    find parts for a platform that supports Windows or Linux. I live in a large
    dual-city metropolis and can no longer even find a retail outlet carrying
    Mac parts or software if I have an immediate same- or next-day need. They
    went out of business.
    - I develop for the largest market share of consumers and business, and they
    predominantly use Windows or some flavor of Unix and I can use the same
    hardware platform for both and either one at a time or even concurrently.
    - Our company produces application software supporting several hardware
    platforms: Windows (95 to XP and server versions), IBM (AIX, AS-400, MVS),
    HP-UX, Sun Solaris, SCO, Linux, etc. No direct Mac support. Why? Little
    or no revenue there for business-grade software (which is a lot higher
    priced than consumer-grade software that most users discuss).

    If I had some tasks that were best suited for executing on a Mac - which
    means that I would need *several* of them unless one was highly critical and
    had no equivalent Windows or Linux counterpart (which is highly unlikely) -
    then I'd use that platform. That hasn't occurred, so far, in well over a
    decade, and is even less a requirement after they switched to a Unix kernel
    since there are other [free] Unix choices. As far as the claimed lesser
    security of Windows, that depends entirely on the expertise (or lack
    thereof) of the user(s) which also applies towards any OS. How many users
    actually [self-]train on each OS that they use? How many ever read a book
    on their OS beyond the "<topic> for Dummies" level, if even that? How many
    users actually ever bother to read the documentation for software that they
    install? Just watch the newsgroups for posters that ask questions regarding
    topics already coverd in the included help, found by roaming through the
    configurable options, or by searching the online knowledgebases, forums, or
    newsgroups. The biggest flaw in security is the user, and most are lazy and
    ignorant - and by deliberate choice. Why do you think so many home/personal
    users buy pre-built boxes with a pre-installed OS? Those are not the users
    with which you want to discuss the merits of one OS over another because
    they have very little expertise or experience in anything but what they
    bought pre-made. Also remember that in the corporate environment that users
    rarely get a choice for their platform. They get whatever their IT dept. or
    sysadmins want to support across the enterprise network and they pick
    whatever best suits the needs of the company and not the user, but those
    choices are also biased by their expertise in each platform (i.e., they
    support what they know).

    I usually don't bother to go back to a platform that I've abandoned. When
    Apple switched to OS/X, I started to reconsider that platform, but the
    various *free* distros for Linux which run on cheaper hardware disqualified
    Mac as a choice. If I'm going to using something non-Microsoft, it isn't
    going to be Apple. At this point, I'm not sure that I'll bother spending
    more money to go with Windows Vista (although I'll probably get it at work
    or have to support and test with it at work). For personal-use on my home
    computer, I might end up instead going with Ubuntu (or Kubuntu if I prefer
    the KDE desktop over Gnome) or maybe Fedora. Mac OS/X isn't in the list of
    candidates.

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
    For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, Jan 28, 2006
    #6
  7. EW105

    Billh Guest

    EW105 wrote:
    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    > and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    > Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    > point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    > computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    > to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    > for a pc?
    > thanks


    One issue is if you are a gamer there are not many that will play on the
    Mac. Along with all the other programs that are windows only. Also in
    general there are more free and low cost programs for the pc.

    Second issue they are in the middle of switching them selves from
    PowerPC to Intel chips. With out going to in depth one might not want
    to buy and Mac with a PowerPc chip as they are being fazed out but on
    the other hand you might not want to buy the new faster Intel based Mac
    as until the program are written in native Intel code they will be run
    in emulation mode and will be slower. As a side note all Apple software
    shipped on the Intel macs will be native. Just things like Photoshop
    have not caught up.

    Third issue I love to tinker with my computer so a full tower that I can
    open and add stuff to is important to me. It is real tuff to do that
    with a mini or Imac. You have to get the top of the line mac to do that.

    Cost issue I have not done a side by side test my self but if you take
    as close as you can configurations for both the Apple will me more. You
    might counter with the fact the Apple comes with all the I stuff that
    you might not get with your windows computer plus with windows you will
    need to buy virus and spyware protection. So the net cost for both
    might not be that far off. Still you are never going to be able to go
    to BestBuy and get an Apple computer monitor and printer for 299.95
    after rebate like you can a windows computer.
     
    Billh, Jan 28, 2006
    #7
  8. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:19:17 -0500, EW105 wrote:

    > I'm looking for negative feedback.


    I don't need one; I already have a PS2.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 28, 2006
    #8
  9. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:29:52 -0500, Frosty wrote:

    > I have a friend who just couldn't seem to make his PC work. He wasn't of a
    > mind to operate the dang thing. Too make drivers to load and whatnot.
    > He also couldn't figure out his ISP.


    Was he with NTL or AOL? :)

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 28, 2006
    #9
  10. EW105

    Plato Guest

    EW105 wrote:
    >
    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    > and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    > Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    > point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    > computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    > to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    > for a pc?


    Use a mac if you need or want a mac. They are good computers.


    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Jan 28, 2006
    #10
  11. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Frosty
    <> wrote:

    > I suggested he get a Mac & AOL and he's not VERY happy with his
    > online/computer experiences!


    In what way is he not happy?
    Did something fail to work, or did he just start using programs he
    wasn't familiar with?
    Does he understand his options for adding or using different software,
    or did he just assume he had to use what was provided?
     
    Mitch, Jan 28, 2006
    #11
  12. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, EW105
    <> wrote:

    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    > and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    > Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    > point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    > computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    > to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    > for a pc?


    I completely dismiss the 'fewer programs available' comments -- the
    number of mainstream programs is very close, so much so that almost
    everyone seems to be using the same programs, regardless of platform.
    The enormous bulk of the rest of the numbers is vertical stuff --
    software customized for very specific applications, usually horribly
    badly, often just slightly altered database software. And every one
    counted as a separate program available for Windows (and especially
    DOS!) We're talking about stuff you could never have any use for, and a
    lot of stuff that is so horribly made it shouldn't even be counted.

    The exception is still games -- there are many more games for Windows.
    (I would not say that there isn't much for Macs, a someone else did --
    there are a LOT of games for Macs.) Very often, that means a lot of
    very mediocre games that look exactly like some popular one that they
    copied. Sometimes, that's okay too -- if you liked the original and
    just want to play more campaigns like it, or if some developer had a
    different take on how it should run.

    If you were talking about laptops, the Intel chip line had a reputation
    for providing longer battery life than Mac laptops (which used the same
    chips as the desktops). I'm not sure it was a big difference.

    There are fewer Linux and Unix tools available ready-made, I think. if
    you like to play with technical aspects, you have less access to the
    base system without using the Developer Kit tools.

    If you really LOVE customizing your desktop and GUI, there are actually
    fewer aspects you can change under Mac OS; even using third-party
    tools, I don't know if you can change the font and color of filenames,
    or the shape of windows, or the style of some modal windows and
    dialogs. It's much harder to change system sounds. I've heard from
    people who miss that; for myself, it just revealed how much time I was
    messing around not doing anything useful.

    Someone in another group was recently lamenting that none of the Mac
    newsreaders behaved as well as Agent, specifically with regard to
    watched items. Gravity and Xnews are also Windows-only; Thoth and
    Entourage and Nisus are Mac-only.

    There is at least one movie type that needs to be converted before
    viewing, and at least one that cannot be viewed at this time with Mac
    software (the second was an MP4 type that a digital camera made). As
    with everything else, you need to check requirements of peripherals'
    software to see how easy it is going to be to use.

    Some consumer services (banks, tech support) still use ActiveX on Web
    sites, and ActiveX is not available under Mac browsers. (Not that I
    would suggest Windows users turn on ActiveX support, either.)

    Adobe Audition is not available for Mac (Apple has it's own
    sound-editing suite). Some people like Audition better, I don't know if
    it's a common opinion or if the difference is significant. Same with a
    couple other major programs, like MS Access (although I think FileMaker
    Pro is usually considered superior in that case, and it's
    cross-platform).

    It is common for some programs (most notably games) to be released
    first for Windows. If so, it can be three to six months before the Mac
    version is out, so this sometimes makes a difference to people
    following the hot new title. I'm not sure there is any common behavior
    about non-game programs that are cross-platform, but it is probably
    most common for both to be released at the same time (maximizes
    marketing efforts, after all.)

    I'll think about more, and let this stuff gather comments.
     
    Mitch, Jan 29, 2006
    #12
  13. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <HiOCf.40282$>, www.seph.ca
    <> wrote:

    > Pc's
    > You can get anything you need for a pc

    As you can for Macs -- or did you have something in mind?

    > You have any goal, you can go out and easily find software that can do the
    > task by download, purchase, or shareware.

    It's true there is more of that kind of software available; it is also
    true you need to do a lot less of that under Mac OS. Some of the tools
    just don't do needed things.
    I suppose the best examples of what you mean here are the customized,
    job-specific tools (bird-watching database, or furniture manufacturing
    tracking system, maybe). Vertical stuff.

    > Everyone one you know has one.

    And that offers exactly zero benefit, and has no real meaning.
    Toyotas are more common than Volvos, but you drive the same roads in
    the same ways, and most people wouldn't make their choice based on what
    their neighbor owned.

    > Mac's
    > Try to remember that we have been hearing the same mac bullshit for over
    > 10-12 years now...
    > Comparing pros and cons of the two mediums mostly based on arguments made
    > during the infancy of speedy 386's and win 3.1 are hardly persuasive over
    > time.

    No specific criticism here; did you have any claim in mind?

    > Most home mac users are so ignorant of a mac's workings that they slop
    > filled drives and their fave word processor/snood type games.

    Why is it a benefit that you know how it works?
    If it doesn't require fiddling, it's working and you can use it.
    Or did you have some useful 'fiddlement' in mind?

    > PC users have the advantage of having lived through Win98, and therefor can
    > now consider themselves honorary accredited microsoft technicians,

    Now I think you are arguing strongly for Macs.

    > their
    > valued expertise filling many a newsgroup with blather and chatter, and
    > every store tech, customer service agent, help desk from the Phillipines to
    > Timbuktu will never say "I don't know" because these days everyone thinks
    > they know everything.


    Now I'm _sure_ you are arguing for Macs.
    For the record, Mac users have had two such major changes -- the switch
    from CISC to RISC PowerPC processors, and the switch from the older OS
    4-9 software to OS X. Both have gone quite smoothly -- very smoothly
    compared to some of the Microsoft changes. But Mac users are wary about
    the newest one, too -- the switch from PowerPC to Intel processors. So
    far, no problems, but it's early yet.
     
    Mitch, Jan 29, 2006
    #13
  14. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, EW105
    <> wrote:

    > I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    > and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    > Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    > point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    > computer and didn't like it?
    > With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    > cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    > to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    > for a pc?
    > thanks


    I got another one --
    no tablet hardware yet.

    There are tablet displays, wireless offerings, and great compatibility
    with handhelds and PDAs, but no real tablet-style portable/laptop.

    There also isn't an ultra-portable laptop, like Sony's or Toshiba
    smallest offerings. Apple's philosophy is that users want the optical
    drive and a harder case, so they aren't as small and light as some
    competitors.
    (Although most of the ultralights and a lot of the medium-sized laptops
    have scary frames and soft plastics; I wouldn't be comfortable with
    them.)
     
    Mitch, Jan 29, 2006
    #14
  15. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <43dbbcf2$0$13964$>, Billh
    <> wrote:

    > One issue is if you are a gamer there are not many that will play on the
    > Mac. Along with all the other programs that are windows only.

    Maybe only a few hundred games. For discussion's sake, let's say it's a
    factor of 5.
    What programs do you have in mind that are Windows-only?
    Anything major, or are you talking minor utilities?

    > Second issue they are in the middle of switching them selves from
    > PowerPC to Intel chips. With out going to in depth one might not want
    > to buy and Mac with a PowerPc chip as they are being fazed out but on
    > the other hand you might not want to buy the new faster Intel based Mac
    > as until the program are written in native Intel code they will be run
    > in emulation mode and will be slower. As a side note all Apple software
    > shipped on the Intel macs will be native. Just things like Photoshop
    > have not caught up.

    No problems yet, and in the past major changes like this have gone by
    quite cleanly. We're looking forward to a very smooth transition.

    > Third issue I love to tinker with my computer so a full tower that I can
    > open and add stuff to is important to me. It is real tuff to do that
    > with a mini or Imac. You have to get the top of the line mac to do that.

    Well, the desktop series that isn't iMac, anyway. The top three of the
    line.

    > Cost issue I have not done a side by side test my self but if you take
    > as close as you can configurations for both the Apple will me more. You
    > might counter with the fact the Apple comes with all the I stuff that
    > you might not get with your windows computer plus with windows you will
    > need to buy virus and spyware protection. So the net cost for both
    > might not be that far off. Still you are never going to be able to go
    > to BestBuy and get an Apple computer monitor and printer for 299.95
    > after rebate like you can a windows computer.

    But is that the machine we are talking about? I mean, if you are buying
    the primary computer for all your basic tasks, are you getting a
    Celeron with a slow bus, slow drive, and a low RAM limit?
    I've actually seen an article comparing hardware that mentioned this
    the same way. The author talked about how a Windows PC could cost $400
    but the cheapest Power Mac (which is the desktop series) was $2000 or
    something -- and then went on to talk about the best-performing
    computer in the list, which was Alienware at around $4500 or so. He
    just wouldn't put models and price in context.
     
    Mitch, Jan 29, 2006
    #15
  16. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <43db8a6d$0$1449$>, Deano
    <> wrote:

    > I've considered it but everytime I've tried using a Mac it's just felt so
    > alien and uncomfortable. The OS has never seemed that fast either and I've
    > played with the faster Macs.

    Part of that is the way Mac OS draws to the screen; windows grow, and
    slide out, and menus extend downward. So rather than just appear
    instantly, they move -- it's a compromise to displaying items that
    Apple believes keeps the operations clearer.

    > I guess windoze has taken too insidious a hold
    > on my mind.

    Well, people tend to put others into the context of what they learn
    first. I'd guess you learned Windows first. Not a sign of weakness.

    > The other thing you lose by such a switch is full compatibility with PCs -
    > workwise that's not something I could ever accept. The clients I work with
    > use Windows and do my colleagues.

    But the only way that compatibility means anything is in software.
    Exhanging files, sharing storage, using networked hardware, using
    networks -- all of this has been standard since the late 80s. And file
    formats, while not always standardized, have always been about how
    proprietary the applications used make them. if you want to share a
    file, even in a Windows-only network, you always save it in a format
    that is common, so that other users with other programs will be able to
    open them. It's the same today, and different OSes have nothing to do
    with it.
     
    Mitch, Jan 29, 2006
    #16
  17. EW105

    Frosty Guest

    What trick, what device, what starting-hole on Sat, 28 Jan 2006
    23:50:03 GMT, canst thou now find out, to hide Mitch <>
    from this open and apparent shame?:

    >In article <>, Frosty
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I suggested he get a Mac & AOL and he's not VERY happy with his
    >> online/computer experiences!

    >
    >In what way is he not happy?


    D'oh!
    Now, I meant NOW
    Frikin' fingers!

    >Did something fail to work, or did he just start using programs he
    >wasn't familiar with?
    >Does he understand his options for adding or using different

    software,
    >or did he just assume he had to use what was provided?


    ‹(•¿•)›
     
    Frosty, Jan 29, 2006
    #17
  18. On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:07:44 -0500, Frosty wrote:

    > What trick, what device, what starting-hole on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:50:03
    > GMT, canst thou now find out, to hide Mitch <> from this
    > open and apparent shame?:
    >
    >>In article <>, Frosty
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I suggested he get a Mac & AOL and he's not VERY happy with his
    >>> online/computer experiences!

    >>
    >>In what way is he not happy?

    >
    > D'oh!
    > Now, I meant NOW
    > Frikin' fingers!


    I liked it better the first way. I mean, my God -- Mac *and* AOL? Might
    as well go for the trifecta -- Mac, AOL, Lobotomy. ;)


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 29, 2006
    #18
  19. EW105

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Vanguard
    <> wrote:

    > Stop looking at the solution backwards. Based on your critical and
    > important tasks, decide what applications best fit the requirements for
    > those tasks. Then find which platforms on which those critical and
    > important applications will run. Use the platform best suited for the task
    > and application.

    I like this advice, but it's just so hard for many kinds of users to
    know which applications will be suited. And the ones that do know often
    feel decided about what they want to use.
    Even chatting with people checking out systems, it's hard to get
    meaningful answers to "how are you going to use it?"

    > Reasons why I've never bothered going to or stay with a Mac:
    > - Dearth of software titles, especially specialty, vertical, or business
    > software.

    That's the meaningful part of the software issue. One thing, though;
    Apple apparently offers some very cool tools for development, so it
    might no be as much work for many projects.

    > - Pricier hardware. Some is nearly equivalently priced but too much is
    > higher priced.

    Yes, but great software value, and great lifetimes.

    > - Dearth of vendors supporting the platform.

    Actually, a lot of vendors have been won back with common device types,
    like PCI, AGP, USB, ATA. Jobs likes to work with better technology, so
    much of the newer hot technology has worked back into Apple hardware.

    > - No reason to pay for their Unix OS (OS/X) when so many are free, cheaper,
    > or have a larger and more active community from which to cull support.

    As long as they feel well-developed and clean, are easy to use, and
    have lots of good apps, it sounds like a good idea for many people. Can
    we get more folks off Windows?

    > - I don't buy prebuilt computers. I build my own. Easier and cheaper to
    > find parts for a platform that supports Windows or Linux. I live in a large
    > dual-city metropolis and can no longer even find a retail outlet carrying
    > Mac parts or software if I have an immediate same- or next-day need. They
    > went out of business.

    Nonsense. You are always looking at Mac hardware; it's just not labeled
    as such. Macs use mostly the same stuff you'd be buying for PCs.
    Biggest issue there is motherboards.

    > - I develop for the largest market share of consumers and business, and they
    > predominantly use Windows or some flavor of Unix and I can use the same
    > hardware platform for both and either one at a time or even concurrently.

    As long as you can get those customers, it's a decent plan. But if you
    developed a program for Mac OS that didn't already exist, that's a lot
    of potential buyers, too. There's a payoff either way.

    > - Our company produces application software supporting several hardware
    > platforms: Windows (95 to XP and server versions), IBM (AIX, AS-400, MVS),
    > HP-UX, Sun Solaris, SCO, Linux, etc. No direct Mac support. Why? Little
    > or no revenue there for business-grade software (which is a lot higher
    > priced than consumer-grade software that most users discuss).

    Probably right -- but that isn't because of a benefit, it's because of
    a well-known shortsightedness in business IT. 'Slippery slope' problem,
    but it does mean that developers like that can rely on good short-term
    prospects, even though they have a lot of competition.

    > As far as the claimed lesser
    > security of Windows, that depends entirely on the expertise (or lack
    > thereof) of the user(s) which also applies towards any OS.

    Well, no -- there are still huge issues that other OSes just don't
    have. Look at the problem of running as root, the default settings of
    programs that most users begin with -- even the WMF file issue.

    > How many users
    > actually [self-]train on each OS that they use?

    Almost all? I wouldn't suggest that most people study anything in order
    to use their computers. I suspect the vast majority just fiddle until
    it breaks.

    > The biggest flaw in security is the user, and most are lazy and
    > ignorant - and by deliberate choice.

    Sure, but that isn't going to change soon. So it is a real issue. And
    it affects Windows far more than any other OS, thus the reality of the
    problem.

    > Also remember that in the corporate environment that users
    > rarely get a choice for their platform. They get whatever their IT dept. or
    > sysadmins want to support across the enterprise network and they pick
    > whatever best suits the needs of the company and not the user, but those
    > choices are also biased by their expertise in each platform (i.e., they
    > support what they know).

    And what can justify their jobs, their continued employment, their
    budget, a big future, offers the most other options for support and
    partnerships, and which requires lots of simple support (i.e.,
    everybody needs them frequently). As you are suggesting, it has little
    to do with what suits the tasks.
     
    Mitch, Jan 29, 2006
    #19
  20. EW105 wrote:

    I'm looking for negative feedback. I've been a pc user for the beginning
    >and I want to know more about Macs. I've spoken and discussed this with
    >Mac users and get plenty of positive feedback but now I'd like the other
    >point of view, if any pc users have looked into getting an Apple
    >computer and didn't like it?
    >With much less problems as far as viruses and other security threats,
    >cool design, affordability, quality machines, why wouldn't it make sense
    >to switch to a Mac, except that there's fewer programs available than
    >for a pc?
    >thanks
    >
    >


    Do computers worry you?
     
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?c2FpbG9yMQ==?=

    Adding Apple Macintosh computer to mt network

    =?Utf-8?B?c2FpbG9yMQ==?=, Mar 21, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    523
    Jim Seifert [MSFT]
    Mar 25, 2005
  2. John Horner
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    567
  3. Careers
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    643
    Ben Measures
    Jan 31, 2004
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=

    I think I will get this and I think I will get that

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    534
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=
    Mar 18, 2006
  5. danbloom
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    390
    Spamm Trappe
    Mar 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page