PCWorld Forums: Alternatives To Popular Tech Products - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Alternatives to Popular Tech Products here

Well usually the point in brand names is getting a name you can trust. There are cheap alternatives to anything but their not always equal when it comes to quality.

For instance while Linux is free it's not the same as using Windows or even OSX. It's not designed the same, it's GUI is not the same and it doesn't play all the same games and software that the others do.

Hell you can apply that theory even in food. A store brand of Mountain Dew isn't gonna taste exactly like Mountain Dew.

I always stick to the saying "you get what you pay for". No it doesn't always apply but it does in most cases.

The brand names are not always better. For instance, several years ago, my dad bought a HP printer. We had trouble getting it to work and returned it. We bought a cheap Brother and worked perfectly. When we needed another printer (for a different purpose), guess what brand we got?

Oh, and as for a Sony Blu-ray player - sure it has cool features, but you know the one thing that's been around for a decade that it gets wrong about 1/2 the time? Remembering where you were on the disc. It frequently starts from the beginning. Oh, and that stupid "Your Internet Content is Ready" screen that you must click OK on when you want to watch Netflix? Lame...

And Acrobat? It's full of security holes. I've been experimenting with alternatives for a while now. I currently use Nitro PDF reader. Like Linux, it's not popular or widely used, but that's why no one bothers to target it. Meaning I'm much safer.

I'm not saying that's always the case. I wouldn't buy an offbrand PC, I'd buy one of a known good brand (note: cheap OEMs don't count). I wouldn't buy a mouse from a brand that I've never heard of, I'll get a name-brand one like a Logitech. And I won't buy from a site that I've never heard of, I'll go to somewhere like amazon.

Many of these alternatives aren't that generic, they're simply not the most widely used. And here, it's often an issue of security or simply not likeing the most common thing. The competiting products can be better, but not always. Do the research.

I am throwing my weight in with LiveBrianD as well. The point is, in fact, that these companies spend LOTS of money to convince everyone that their BRAND is the best one, and that the products produced by the BRAND is the best one. Agreed, you might get a generic version of Lemon-Lime soda and it might not taste the same as Sprite, or Mountain Dew or 7-Up. It might taste better; or it might just be different. The point is, that's not a bad thing.

Most will agree that monopolies ARE a bad thing. One of the reasons I don't support Apple is due to their monopoly on both the software and operating system. Some would argue that this is what ensures that their systems run better than a Windows system, but that is also precisely the behavior that we found intolerable when IBM owned the rights to DOS and you could only run it on their PCs and no one else's. And it wasn't any more reliable. As it is, most of the hardware in an Apple computer is exactly the same as what you'd find in any other laptop, with the possible exception of the BIOS chip that makes it think it's an Apple and not a PC.

This argument could go on for so many areas: Is the knit shirt with the polo pony any better than the one with the alligator, especially when they're made at the exact same factory? How about the one with no logo at all? Probably not, unless you've been convinced that spending $75 for that little embroidered brand identifier suddenly proves you're more successful than the guy who makes twice as much money as you do who buys the generic one.

This post has been edited by GSpotts: 06 June 2011 - 09:47 PM

Right on with most of these comments! I don't usually buy name brands nor do I buy the cheapest I can find. Anything I do buy I am looking for reliability, ease of use and long service life. Easily found by research then buying good low to mid-range products >>> even computer and home entertainment electronics.

'A name you can trust'... to rip you off and promise 'bug fixes in the next version' that never happen, and to make every new version of their proprietary file formats incompatible with the previous ones to force as many of their idiot users who can still afford it after being bled white for software to 'upgrade' to the next buggy, bloated pile of crap.

Evildave, on 11 June 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

Huh?

Lets see, Microsoft introduced the previous document formats (.doc, etc) with Office 97 in late 1996. Those formats were replaced in 2006 with the introduction of Office 2007. Prior versions can be patched for free to use the new formats all the way back to Office 2000, introduced in 1999.

So, you can still use a 12-year-old version of MS Office and have full compatibility (doesn't break formatting on my legal pleadings, unlike trying to import into ANY non-MS application). Likewise, you can use the very latest MS Office 2011 for Mac or 2010 for Windows can save documents in formats as old as Word 4.0, which is from 1989, so thats 22 years of backward compatibility.

As for bugs, there usually are a few, and they usually get patched a few months after the initial version release. I had some minor issues with Office 2011 for Mac, they were patched barely three weeks after release, and then a service pack cleaned and refined it further a few months after that.

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

This post has been edited by asiafish: 11 June 2011 - 12:56 PM

Where'd I say 'Microsoft'? I guess it's implicit when the terms, 'buggy, bloated pile of crap' are used. Universally understood.

But the statements are just as applicable to Adobe and any number of other software vendors and their products with an established name... and no quality, nor any reason to seek quality in their products because they have a LOYAL following of mindless lemmings who'll buy any crap they squat down and grunt out all over their customers like so much diarrhea.

Evildave, on 12 June 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

No, they are bought by hard-working users who aren't willing to suffer the many headaches involved with trying to adapt and alternative and not fully compatible application to replace the commercial application that works just fine.

The diarrhea comes from the open source zealots who think that everyone can easily abandon Office and Creative Suite and instead use Libre or GIMP with no loss of functionality or wasted time.

You'd think hard working people would have something other to do in a forum.

As an Adobe user (gotta have the Flash), I can tell you that...
A) There is no alternative.
Adobe has never found an annoying UI glitch, crash or bug that they couldn't get artists to 'work around', rather than fix themselves.

The same can be said for M$ products, and pretty much any product with a big following of people locked into their software. Shackled like a dog tied to the family car bumper.

Evildave, on 12 June 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

I'm not hard working. I spend as little time as possible working. I worked hard for years and went to school at night. Now that my practice is mature I prefer working smart over working hard. It gives me much more time to travel, ride, gamble, and yes, even to write comments in forums.

This post has been edited by asiafish: 12 June 2011 - 07:05 PM

Evildave, on 12 June 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Then you are here because???

waldojim, on 12 June 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

Because I only had six hours of work to do on a sunday putting together a web site, thanks for asking.

But the reply was to asiafish, who now insists that he doesn't work hard. So he's only 'representing' other people, and I should say he puts a LOT of hours into defending Micro$uck Orifice. Much more than his real clients, who don't deserve 'hard work', probably.

Evildave, on 12 June 2011 - 10:47 PM, said:

When did I ever claim to represent anyone other than myself, my clients or those who need to use a word processor to open legal pleadings?

And my clients deserve smart work, not hard work. I'm certain they don't want to pay an extra half hour of my time to reformat legal pleadings after importing them into LibreOffice or the like when I could open them in Word without the extra charge. You know, working smarter instead of harder.

This post has been edited by asiafish: 13 June 2011 - 04:42 AM

Evildave, on 12 June 2011 - 10:47 PM, said:

From what I understand of what he does, he probably spends more time pasting information into documents than anything else. Then very likely he shows up in a court room for a few hours 2 or 3 times a week and enjoys having a lot of time to himself. That would certainly be a sweet gig, if it didn't carry the lawyer stigma.

waldojim, on 13 June 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

It is a very sweet gig, and except in tech forums there is very little stigma. Most people in most places still say to their spouses how they hope their children grow up to be doctors or lawyers. There is a reason for it.

Because they're the only jobs left that can't be outsourced (yet).

Evildave, on 13 June 2011 - 09:56 PM, said:

No, its because doctors provide important services, don't have to get dirty, actually become more productive and capable as they age, and most importantly, if they are any good they make a lot of money.

asiafish, on 13 June 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

Doctor, yes. Lawyer, no. But that is brought on lately by the wonderful frivolous lawsuits of late, and the ambulance chasers. I dispise lawyers anymore. I realize that is a small minority giving the people a bad name, but they are also the majority what is visible to people.

waldojim, on 14 June 2011 - 09:58 AM, said:

The majority of lawyers I know are honorable people who vigorously defend the rights of their clients, whether those clients are criminal defendants, immigration respondents (defendants) or prosecutors whose "client" is "the people". With VERY FEW exceptions, they are among the best people I've ever met, and totally deserving of their good reputations.