Are you folks MAC or PC?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by baker1, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. I think that most, if not all, of today's PCs also support DOS

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. baker1

    Cynicor Guest

    Not unlike Xerox making a conscious decision not to patent the windowing
    concepts that were eventually incorporated into the Mac OS.
     
    Cynicor, Dec 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements


  3. No, Billy Boy cannot let Stevie die. He has to keep Apple alive to show to
    the Anti-Trust people he is not scuttling the competition. Look, he even
    made versions of his flagship Windows software to run on the Mac. With Billy
    Boy's charitable act, Apple would have gone under even with the iPod sales
    figures.

    Wannabe
    =======
     
    WannabeSomeone, Dec 26, 2005

  4. I have been using PC since it came out in 1982. IBM PC-DOS and MS-DOS are
    both Microsoft product. IBM licensed PC-DOS from Microsoft.

    In fact, "PC" is a trademark of IBM, "DOS" and "Windows" are trademarks of
    Microsoft.


    Wannabe
    =======
     
    WannabeSomeone, Dec 26, 2005
  5. "David J Taylor"
    True. Even the DOS applications from the early 80's can run on today's
    Windows computer. Microsoft always takes care of old software every time it
    changes versions. On the other hand, Apple makes your investment in hardware
    and software obsolete every time it changes a version. That is the real
    reason everybody with a sound mind flocked to the Microsoft camp.


    Wannabe
    =======
     
    WannabeSomeone, Dec 26, 2005
  6. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And yet here you are trying to argue that Apple should have made the
    very same mistake.
    Idiocy. Apple's sales of Macs has been growing steadily for years.
    Your claim is refuted by the facts.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 26, 2005
  7. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Such stupid lies only expose you as being an irrational cultist.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 26, 2005
  8. No, I'm saying that Apple would have destroyed the competition and been the
    dominant force in the computer industry if they weren't so pigheaded and
    greedy. If IBM followed Apple's foolish lead they would have been in a neck
    and neck race to failure.
    Again, how so? Look at Apple's sales figures and it is face slapping
    evident that iPod *NOT* Macs are their bread and butter. Like I said, there
    is no evidence to support that a PC is better than a Mac or visa versa. In
    reality it's a PC and Intel world, even Mac has migrated to an Intel
    platform. The sheer facts are Apple couldn't economically continue to use
    overpriced hardware and expect its fan base to buy new hardware every time
    they have a software revision.









    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 26, 2005
  9. baker1

    Pinehollow Guest

    "IF", in the early 80's, Apple had made the decision to open the Mac
    architecture and pursue the OS software business as Microsoft did with
    Windows,.they would be king now. Their OS was superior to Windows and if it
    had gotten widespread circulation by letting others build the hardware,
    Apple could be the premier software company and all of the people now
    bashing Microsoft would be bashing Apple. That is human nature. Many
    people "have" to be against something and they are usually after the big guy
    on the block, who in this case would be Apple, not Microsoft.

    One small, but critical decision by Apple could have changed the whole
    landscape of the PC business. They tried, in a limited way for a while, to
    open the architecture to a selected group of companies, but it was too late
    then. They screwed the pooch.

    Don
     
    Pinehollow, Dec 26, 2005
  10. baker1

    Frank ess Guest

     
    Frank ess, Dec 26, 2005
  11. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    In your obviously biased and undereducated opinion.
    IBM did fail.
    Read what I wrote.
    Which says nothing about whether Mac sales are doing well.
    There is plenty of evidence.
    Now you resort to stupid lies in order to justify your blatant biases.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 26, 2005
  12. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Like IBM.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 26, 2005
  13. baker1

    Cynicor Guest

    Go back and read Judge Jackson's ruling. Apple OS machines are
    specifically defined out of the PC market where Microsoft was accused of
    antitrust violations. Following his logic, Apple's health wouldn't
    affect the antitrust allegations.
     
    Cynicor, Dec 26, 2005
  14. baker1

    Cynicor Guest

    His statements are absolutely true, whether or not you agree with his
    conclusions. Read Raymond Chen's blog sometime.
     
    Cynicor, Dec 26, 2005
  15. baker1

    Guest Guest

    ipod is about 33% of revenue and macs are about 45% of revenue. the
    rest is software and other products. see the recent shareholder report
    for exact percentages (those are from memory). ipod is clearly *not*
    the bread and butter, but it is a significant chunk of revenue.
    the hardware is competitive with name brand pcs and there is no
    requirement to upgrade with each hardware revision. sure, someone can
    build a pc for next to nothing but the average user doesn't do that.
     
    Guest, Dec 26, 2005
  16. baker1

    Guest Guest

    applications written in 1984 for mac os 1.0 still work unless they
    assumed specific hardware (i.e. screen size). compatibility is
    outstanding, actually. also note that the macintosh switched
    processors and these apps still work, even though the hardware is
    *nothing* like it was in 1984.
     
    Guest, Dec 26, 2005
  17. baker1

    Guest Guest

    no, his statements are absolutely false.

    applications written in 1984 for mac os 1.0 still work unless they
    assumed specific hardware (i.e. the size and location of the screen
    buffer) and did not ask the operating system for the information. also
    note that the macintosh switched processors and these old apps *still*
    work, even though the hardware and operating system is *nothing* like
    it was in 1984.
     
    Guest, Dec 26, 2005
  18. baker1

    Guest Guest

    initially, beta was one hour, then vhs was two, then beta was three.
    vhs's low quality speed is a little longer (6 versus 5), but the
    quality of vhs at that speed is simply atrocious. beta's five hour
    speed is actually quite good for most things.

    the difference was not noticable on the cheapo tvs that most people
    had, but it certainly was noticable on decent quality tvs.
     
    Guest, Dec 26, 2005
  19. baker1

    Bill Funk Guest

    IBM made a conscious decision to market a non-IBM compatible PC
    (MicroChannel).
    It wasn't the decision to go open system that did them in, it was
    their own marketing decisions.
    The Ipod certainly is a great seller for Apple.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 26, 2005
  20. That's sheer nonsense. The current G5-based Macs can run the
    overwhelming majority of OS 6, 7, 8, and 9 applications. (Note that
    this will change when the 2006 Macs are "improved" with Intel
    processors.)

    Further, a 1999 Macintosh G3 runs the latest version of OSX quite
    nicely; and with a little third-party help the 1997 models will, too.

    A few years back at Computerland, my boss was frantic to run a Windows
    3.1 address book program so he could retrieve some phone numbers. All
    of the current PC's in the office crashed when tried, but my Macintosh
    (with Virtual PC) handled it fine.
     
    Scott Schuckert, Dec 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.