Sign In
Register
Help
Okay. I've had it up to hear and over with all theses"Mac vs. PC" wars.
I'm biased towards the Mac because it's what I love to use. I also appreciate the utility of Windows. It isn't the world's most popular OS just because Microsoft was adjudicated as breaking the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in restraint of trade.
The only reason no one went to jail in this case, is because it was tried in federal civil court and not in criminal court. The feds rightly believed that they would not win if jurors were given the choice of sending Bill Gates to prison versus figning MSFT corportation for illegal and anti-competitive practices.
My own belief is that, had the courts forced Microsoft to break up into sepearate entities, a la AT&T, Microsoft would have been much better off in the long run.
They've lost their focus. It may not show well in their products, but it most certainly shows in their stock for at least the past five years.
Apple?
They made several, often bizarre, missteps after Steve Jobs left...well, he was shown the door.
Had you invested in Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 and held your stock, you'd now realize a 1,000% return on your investment, making even Warren Buffet blush.
There's a reason why the stock is doing so well. Wanna hear it, or do you want to continue to be rigid, argumentative, and defensive? Apple's products appeal to millions of people everyone. I don't make the rules; I only try to break them at my convenience. If this were not true, how did they nearly overtake the smart phone industry in less than a year?
How did they overtake the MP3-player market in less than a year?
Why is it they they are making a fortune on desktops and laptops in an environment in which people like you plead that their products are overpriced?
How do they manage to maintain their outrageous margins in a worldwide economic downturn?
If your argument is that most people or everyone is universally uninformed when it comes to technology, then you need to include yourself in the group of uninformed people, if only because that premise suggests that we're all stupid.
Microsoft didn't "save" Apple in 1997 by investing 150 million dollars in Apple. It was a lawsuit settlement that Apple accepted, knowing they were on the right end of the deal, but also knowing that they could not compete with Microsoft's warchest of attorneys in court. Essentially, Micorosoft agreed to continue offering Office for the Mac in the deal...one of Microsoft's biggest money-makers...and pay the money for Apple to drop their suit that alleged that Microsoft stole features from the Mac OS. (Oh-by-the-way...Microsoft is the largest software developer for the Mac. Surprised? If you are, then you probably know very little about their relationship.)
I don't care what OS you're married to. I don't care who stole from whom in terms of "features" and "look and feel" on any OS. What I do care about is reality. And the current reality tells me that Microsoft is losing customers because it historically and factually continues to disappoint in terms of what it promises and what it delivers to sonsomers.
Microsoft's CEO acknowledged that thousands of people migrated to the Mac OS because of Vista's abysmal failure. Yet Vista cheerleaders continue to deny this.
Like it or not, Apple does not have that history, at least in terms of recent history. And recent history is what people remember best.
Microsoft is no longer -- and for some time has not been -- a winner in terms of investment or usability for consumers. Microsoft's greatest strength is in enterprise software, yet they continue to fail with everyday consumers. Just look at the stock movement for the past five years. It stinks. There's no way around this. I don't care what spin you put on this; facts are facts.
Which is Better For Your Business?a Mac or a PC?
MultiQuote
#642
quackadilly 
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,134
- Joined: 23-April 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 02:43 AM
"Microsoft's CEO acknowledged that thousands of people migrated to the Mac OS because of Vista's abysmal failure. Yet Vista cheerleaders continue to deny this. "
Those that jumped ship were on the border anyways. No one forced them to use Vista, they could have stayed with XP, as I did, and waited until 7 came out like I will be doing.
What criteria determines an "abysmal failure"?
Those that jumped ship were on the border anyways. No one forced them to use Vista, they could have stayed with XP, as I did, and waited until 7 came out like I will be doing.
What criteria determines an "abysmal failure"?
#643
WinTard
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,141
- Joined: 16-January 09
- Location:Look behind you...
Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:59 AM
Everything has seasons. Apple did. Microsoft also did.
I predict that the tide will turnaround in Microsoft's favor, with Windows 7 becoming the next Windows de-facto standard worldwide for all PCs.
Whatever else is done however else can be done better, more efficiently and directly within Windows 7. Thus lowering the TCO. Hence making it the best overall OS for the majority of computer users worldwide.
That will also reflect onto the stock-markets. It's just the cycle we're in.
~~~~~~~~~~
A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
~ Warren Buffett
If a business does well, the stock eventually follows.
~ Warren Buffett
I predict that the tide will turnaround in Microsoft's favor, with Windows 7 becoming the next Windows de-facto standard worldwide for all PCs.
Whatever else is done however else can be done better, more efficiently and directly within Windows 7. Thus lowering the TCO. Hence making it the best overall OS for the majority of computer users worldwide.
That will also reflect onto the stock-markets. It's just the cycle we're in.
~~~~~~~~~~
A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
~ Warren Buffett
If a business does well, the stock eventually follows.
~ Warren Buffett
#644
danger
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 04-October 06
Posted 29 May 2009 - 06:21 AM
I recently worked for a company that had 40 Dells running XP and 12 Macs on Leopard, all running versions of Office. I spent 90% of my time working on the Macs as the OS is quite buggy, and Office 2008 is a nightmare for a company using an exchange server. Especially in today's business world, who has $4000 to spend on a computer when a new Dell can be had for about $1200? Now I do understand in you are doing graphics work, yes the Macs are superior, but they are way too expensive for the average user to use.
Dave
Dave
#645
asiafish
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 23-January 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 06:57 AM
danger said:
I recently worked for a company that had 40 Dells running XP and 12 Macs on Leopard, all running versions of Office. I spent 90% of my time working on the Macs as the OS is quite buggy, and Office 2008 is a nightmare for a company using an exchange server. Especially in today's business world, who has $4000 to spend on a computer when a new Dell can be had for about $1200? Now I do understand in you are doing graphics work, yes the Macs are superior, but they are way too expensive for the average user to use.
Dave
Dave
Only pros pay $4000 (Mac Pro) for a Mac. The iMac in my front office was $1200. The Mac Mini my paralegal uses was $600. The MacBooks used by the office manager and senior paralegal were $1100 and $1300, respectively, while my MacBook Pro was $2000.
My ThinkPad was $1500 after $500 in discounts, its predecessor, also a ThinkPad was $2000. Our Dell Server $3000 and a paralegal's HP desktop was $1100.
#646
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 07:34 AM
If I can jump in.
Everyone steals others IP....problem is when MSFT does it, they are so afraid they are going to take over the world with it or something and the only way to slow them down is to sue.
Apple made teh iPOd..best mp3 player to date...why because of great marketing and making the player look very high tech. It was the coolest thing on the market and people bought into it. Befire that creative had teh coolest mp3 player. If you make something that looks cooler even if it offers the sae functions people will buy it. Same for iPhone. The stolen idea fro LG, Apple is making billions from it with a bunch of ideas done by others...they siply crafted it by using a stripped down version of OSX and making the interface very pleasing to use. And even tho teh phone is issing several common features they still compete very well. Most people like the iphoen for 2 reasons...its looks and the tiuch...the rest is not new just polished.
Breaking up MSFT would not have had the sae effect as breaking ATT. ATT is teh company that ran and own ALL the phones lines in the USA and they are teh ones who rans the lines that crossed teh oceans...and they were charging high pricings for service. Brreaking them up into smaller bells prooted competition. MSFT already has competition...If they would have broken up MSFT thay would have simply been all dominate. You can'r make a company out of IE. Its free so what beenfit would that be. Office would still be Office and would still be teh best suite. WordPerfect and Open-Office don't matter now so why would making it...its own company help? It wouldn't.
MSFT has always been teh largest developer for Apple...no one really wants to develop for them. That is why MSFT was able to hang office over there head. I pasted it here before: this is directly from the DOJ repaort in America vs MSFT:
344. One point of leverage that Microsoft held over Apple was the fact that ninety
percent of Mac OS users running a suite of office productivity applications had adopted
Microsoft?s Mac Office. In 1997, Apple?s business was in steep decline, and many doubted that
the company would survive much longer. Observing Apple?s poor performance in the
marketplace and its dismal prospects for the future, many ISVs questioned the wisdom of
continuing to spend time and money developing applications for the Mac OS. Had Microsoft
announced in the midst of this atmosphere that it was ceasing to develop new versions of Mac
Office, a great number of ISVs, customers, developers, and investors would have interpreted the
announcement as Apple?s death notice.
345. Recognizing the importance of Mac Office to Apple?s survival, Microsoft
threatened to cancel the product unless Apple compromised on a number of outstanding issues
between the companies. One of these issues was the extent to which Apple distributed and
promoted Internet Explorer, as opposed to Navigator, with the Mac OS.
346. At the end of June 1997, the Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office, Ben
Waldman, sent a message to Gates and Microsoft?s Chief Financial Officer, Greg Maffei. The message reflected Waldman?s understanding that Microsoft was threatening to cancel Mac
Office:
The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory
response have certainly frustrated a lot of people at Microsoft. The threat to
cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing
so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe that Apple is
taking this threat pretty seriously . . . .
347. Waldman was actually an advocate for releasing Mac Office 97 promptly, and he
pressed for that outcome in his message to Gates and Maffei. Although they applauded
Waldman?s devotion to the product, Gates and Maffei made clear that the threat of canceling
Mac Office was too valuable a source of leverage to give up before Microsoft had extracted
acceptable concessions from Apple. Maffei wrote Waldman, ?Ben - great mail, but [we] need a
way to push these guys and this is the only one that seems to make them move.? In his response
to Waldman, Gates asked whether Microsoft could conceal from Apple in the coming month the
fact that Microsoft was almost finished developing of Mac Office 97.
348. In order to assure his superiors that he was pursuing corporate policy despite his
personal convictions, Waldman reported to Maffei in his June 1997 message that he had recently
told his counterpart at Apple that Maffei ?would be recommending to Bill [Gates] that we cancel
Mac Office 97.? Waldman believed that his counterpart ?got the message that we would, in fact,
cancel.? Waldman went on to write that when his counterpart had asked what specific problems
Microsoft had with Apple?s recent response to Microsoft?s proposals, Waldman had replied by
mentioning four issues, including ?IE equal access.? By that, Waldman meant Microsoft?s
demand that the Mac OS make Internet Explorer just as available to its users as it made
Navigator. According to Waldman, the Apple employee had responded that Apple would not be....
There is much more.
I agree the $150 mil was part of a patent settlement...but it was also MSFT investing in keep Apple alive so that the DOJ would stay off their @$$. Of Apple had vanaished fro the PC market...that would mean MSFT would have had sole ownship as Linux isn;'t even a threat at that point...or even now. That would have meant
A lot of companys don't like the way MSFT does business..but to be successful in this industry right now...you either find a way to live with them or you won't last. Period. Netscape died not just because MSFT pushed IE so hard, it was because when MSFT tried to work out dome type of deal...Netscape didn't want to play ball. So MSFT said f-you...and made IE and banished them out of existence. But they have returned as FireFox...basically.
Same for Sun Java and others. After reading the whole DOJ report I can say MSFT is a hard nose player..however lots of companies who do play it their way to some degree will be sucessful and they will profit. Apple may have a high profit margin but why compare the to MSFT. MSFT makes software...that is their core business. NO ONE is better at it then they are on their level. Apple makes one software OSX...that other stuff they have belong to other people they bought...just like MSFT does all the time.
BAM! - No MSFT no Apple...many developers had already abandoned Apple...if MSFT has pulled the Office lifeline...Apple would have no one to develope software for them...eliminating them from the computer arena. Right now iphone is there money make...that is why they make so much...multiply teh cost of Iphone at how many sales...iphone is 70% of what Apple sells right now. They seem to have a high rate because for every single Mac that sells is equal to selling 2 or 3 normal computers...so if Apple sells 2.5 million Macs...that is like selling 5 million because they cost so uch. However Dell still sells 3 times as much. The profit is lower bec Dell sells them cheaper.
I think we all should take a step back and stop picking on Apple...but MSFT as well. MSFT has done way more in driving computers forward then anyone. Because without software computers would be nothing....but a box with blinking lights...however if MSFT wasn't in the game Apple being the first too rip off someone eles IP would have been teh monopoly in this industry and all these fight would be teh same but with different players.
Even if MSFT stock doesn't cost as much as Apple...the return is still better because it is consistant. How any times has Apple's stick split? Now how many times has MSFT's stock split.
Everyone steals others IP....problem is when MSFT does it, they are so afraid they are going to take over the world with it or something and the only way to slow them down is to sue.
Apple made teh iPOd..best mp3 player to date...why because of great marketing and making the player look very high tech. It was the coolest thing on the market and people bought into it. Befire that creative had teh coolest mp3 player. If you make something that looks cooler even if it offers the sae functions people will buy it. Same for iPhone. The stolen idea fro LG, Apple is making billions from it with a bunch of ideas done by others...they siply crafted it by using a stripped down version of OSX and making the interface very pleasing to use. And even tho teh phone is issing several common features they still compete very well. Most people like the iphoen for 2 reasons...its looks and the tiuch...the rest is not new just polished.
Breaking up MSFT would not have had the sae effect as breaking ATT. ATT is teh company that ran and own ALL the phones lines in the USA and they are teh ones who rans the lines that crossed teh oceans...and they were charging high pricings for service. Brreaking them up into smaller bells prooted competition. MSFT already has competition...If they would have broken up MSFT thay would have simply been all dominate. You can'r make a company out of IE. Its free so what beenfit would that be. Office would still be Office and would still be teh best suite. WordPerfect and Open-Office don't matter now so why would making it...its own company help? It wouldn't.
MSFT has always been teh largest developer for Apple...no one really wants to develop for them. That is why MSFT was able to hang office over there head. I pasted it here before: this is directly from the DOJ repaort in America vs MSFT:
344. One point of leverage that Microsoft held over Apple was the fact that ninety
percent of Mac OS users running a suite of office productivity applications had adopted
Microsoft?s Mac Office. In 1997, Apple?s business was in steep decline, and many doubted that
the company would survive much longer. Observing Apple?s poor performance in the
marketplace and its dismal prospects for the future, many ISVs questioned the wisdom of
continuing to spend time and money developing applications for the Mac OS. Had Microsoft
announced in the midst of this atmosphere that it was ceasing to develop new versions of Mac
Office, a great number of ISVs, customers, developers, and investors would have interpreted the
announcement as Apple?s death notice.
345. Recognizing the importance of Mac Office to Apple?s survival, Microsoft
threatened to cancel the product unless Apple compromised on a number of outstanding issues
between the companies. One of these issues was the extent to which Apple distributed and
promoted Internet Explorer, as opposed to Navigator, with the Mac OS.
346. At the end of June 1997, the Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office, Ben
Waldman, sent a message to Gates and Microsoft?s Chief Financial Officer, Greg Maffei. The message reflected Waldman?s understanding that Microsoft was threatening to cancel Mac
Office:
The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory
response have certainly frustrated a lot of people at Microsoft. The threat to
cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing
so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe that Apple is
taking this threat pretty seriously . . . .
347. Waldman was actually an advocate for releasing Mac Office 97 promptly, and he
pressed for that outcome in his message to Gates and Maffei. Although they applauded
Waldman?s devotion to the product, Gates and Maffei made clear that the threat of canceling
Mac Office was too valuable a source of leverage to give up before Microsoft had extracted
acceptable concessions from Apple. Maffei wrote Waldman, ?Ben - great mail, but [we] need a
way to push these guys and this is the only one that seems to make them move.? In his response
to Waldman, Gates asked whether Microsoft could conceal from Apple in the coming month the
fact that Microsoft was almost finished developing of Mac Office 97.
348. In order to assure his superiors that he was pursuing corporate policy despite his
personal convictions, Waldman reported to Maffei in his June 1997 message that he had recently
told his counterpart at Apple that Maffei ?would be recommending to Bill [Gates] that we cancel
Mac Office 97.? Waldman believed that his counterpart ?got the message that we would, in fact,
cancel.? Waldman went on to write that when his counterpart had asked what specific problems
Microsoft had with Apple?s recent response to Microsoft?s proposals, Waldman had replied by
mentioning four issues, including ?IE equal access.? By that, Waldman meant Microsoft?s
demand that the Mac OS make Internet Explorer just as available to its users as it made
Navigator. According to Waldman, the Apple employee had responded that Apple would not be....
There is much more.
I agree the $150 mil was part of a patent settlement...but it was also MSFT investing in keep Apple alive so that the DOJ would stay off their @$$. Of Apple had vanaished fro the PC market...that would mean MSFT would have had sole ownship as Linux isn;'t even a threat at that point...or even now. That would have meant
A lot of companys don't like the way MSFT does business..but to be successful in this industry right now...you either find a way to live with them or you won't last. Period. Netscape died not just because MSFT pushed IE so hard, it was because when MSFT tried to work out dome type of deal...Netscape didn't want to play ball. So MSFT said f-you...and made IE and banished them out of existence. But they have returned as FireFox...basically.
Same for Sun Java and others. After reading the whole DOJ report I can say MSFT is a hard nose player..however lots of companies who do play it their way to some degree will be sucessful and they will profit. Apple may have a high profit margin but why compare the to MSFT. MSFT makes software...that is their core business. NO ONE is better at it then they are on their level. Apple makes one software OSX...that other stuff they have belong to other people they bought...just like MSFT does all the time.
BAM! - No MSFT no Apple...many developers had already abandoned Apple...if MSFT has pulled the Office lifeline...Apple would have no one to develope software for them...eliminating them from the computer arena. Right now iphone is there money make...that is why they make so much...multiply teh cost of Iphone at how many sales...iphone is 70% of what Apple sells right now. They seem to have a high rate because for every single Mac that sells is equal to selling 2 or 3 normal computers...so if Apple sells 2.5 million Macs...that is like selling 5 million because they cost so uch. However Dell still sells 3 times as much. The profit is lower bec Dell sells them cheaper.
I think we all should take a step back and stop picking on Apple...but MSFT as well. MSFT has done way more in driving computers forward then anyone. Because without software computers would be nothing....but a box with blinking lights...however if MSFT wasn't in the game Apple being the first too rip off someone eles IP would have been teh monopoly in this industry and all these fight would be teh same but with different players.
Even if MSFT stock doesn't cost as much as Apple...the return is still better because it is consistant. How any times has Apple's stick split? Now how many times has MSFT's stock split.
#647
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 08:00 AM
@NYSKATER
I also read this back in 2002 I think. When they was talking about Bill Gates being teh richest man in the world. They said...Microsoft is the financially most stable company in this country. Being the largest company in the USA with Wal-Mart coming in as second. They stated teh asset value for MSFT alone was ore valueable then all the money the USA had in circulation. Ib fact they stated..MSFT has enough money to pay off the natinal debt as far as the value of the company. This has never been said of any company in history and I doubt in the future. I don't know how much monet the US has in circulation but that has to be huge...
Bill Gates alone was once worth 55 Billion by himself...he could call the US Gov't right now and say I want you to give 1 million dollars of my monet to every American that possesses a social security number and he still wouldn't be broke...and he'd make it all back in less than a year.
So what about all the money Apple is making...its chump change in comparison :-)
That why when MSFT gets sued the judges make them pay so much...bec they know they have it...not that its fair justice. This last suite they lost. The judge order over 600 Million in damages...not that the company deserved that much...and they didn't even prove if MSFT even made that much on what they stole...they siply garnish the out of biased BS.
There is a company suing Apple right now saying Apple stole the touch interface that you see on iPhone from them. If they win...Apple stands to lose more money then MSFT has ever lost on one lawsuit. So you know Apple is fighting tooth an nail. It could run Iphone off the ,arket or Apple could possibly lose every dime they have made from iphone since day 1. Or maybe the judge will be full of crap and go in Apple favor...we will see.
And what about eth other law Apple is breaking. That Circuit Court says no software developer can prevent and operating system fro running on any platform. If MSFT has prevent Apple from using Windows on a Mac they court would have been all over it. But if Apple does it I guess its ok. It shows just how bias out so called justice system is...just like in the real world...some people can commit a crime and get a slap on the writes while when someone else does it they get teh book thrown at them. Like Halley Barry whom I can't stand...hit some guy and took off. That is a hit and run and leaving the seen of an accident that cause injury. She spent 0 days in jail. A governor we had, gave this woman a reprieve after she lied an said a black guy kidnapped her kids the ensued a nationwide manhunt. She even lied and pick a guy from a police lineup. Only to find out months later she seat belted them into a car and drove them into a near by lake....she killed them bec teh man she was involved with wouldn't marry her bec she had 2 kids...she was to receive teh dealth penalty for 2 counts of capital premeditatemurder..yet teh governor gave her apardon and she is serving life...saying living with teh guilt of her crie is a better punishment. that BS. She killed she should have been killed. if it had been a black person they would have killed him on site...this country is bias just liek soe people here...so I guess we have it honest...look who we have as role models :-) :-) :-)
I also read this back in 2002 I think. When they was talking about Bill Gates being teh richest man in the world. They said...Microsoft is the financially most stable company in this country. Being the largest company in the USA with Wal-Mart coming in as second. They stated teh asset value for MSFT alone was ore valueable then all the money the USA had in circulation. Ib fact they stated..MSFT has enough money to pay off the natinal debt as far as the value of the company. This has never been said of any company in history and I doubt in the future. I don't know how much monet the US has in circulation but that has to be huge...
Bill Gates alone was once worth 55 Billion by himself...he could call the US Gov't right now and say I want you to give 1 million dollars of my monet to every American that possesses a social security number and he still wouldn't be broke...and he'd make it all back in less than a year.
So what about all the money Apple is making...its chump change in comparison :-)
That why when MSFT gets sued the judges make them pay so much...bec they know they have it...not that its fair justice. This last suite they lost. The judge order over 600 Million in damages...not that the company deserved that much...and they didn't even prove if MSFT even made that much on what they stole...they siply garnish the out of biased BS.
There is a company suing Apple right now saying Apple stole the touch interface that you see on iPhone from them. If they win...Apple stands to lose more money then MSFT has ever lost on one lawsuit. So you know Apple is fighting tooth an nail. It could run Iphone off the ,arket or Apple could possibly lose every dime they have made from iphone since day 1. Or maybe the judge will be full of crap and go in Apple favor...we will see.
And what about eth other law Apple is breaking. That Circuit Court says no software developer can prevent and operating system fro running on any platform. If MSFT has prevent Apple from using Windows on a Mac they court would have been all over it. But if Apple does it I guess its ok. It shows just how bias out so called justice system is...just like in the real world...some people can commit a crime and get a slap on the writes while when someone else does it they get teh book thrown at them. Like Halley Barry whom I can't stand...hit some guy and took off. That is a hit and run and leaving the seen of an accident that cause injury. She spent 0 days in jail. A governor we had, gave this woman a reprieve after she lied an said a black guy kidnapped her kids the ensued a nationwide manhunt. She even lied and pick a guy from a police lineup. Only to find out months later she seat belted them into a car and drove them into a near by lake....she killed them bec teh man she was involved with wouldn't marry her bec she had 2 kids...she was to receive teh dealth penalty for 2 counts of capital premeditatemurder..yet teh governor gave her apardon and she is serving life...saying living with teh guilt of her crie is a better punishment. that BS. She killed she should have been killed. if it had been a black person they would have killed him on site...this country is bias just liek soe people here...so I guess we have it honest...look who we have as role models :-) :-) :-)
#648
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 08:11 AM
Macs aren't superior at graphical rendering...they are simply chosen as a better platform out if habit.
Just like Windows is teh proven enterprise platform...however Mac now could certainly compete...however the cost would be devastating to some companies because teh cost of Apple hardware is to expensive in most cases. Most business I see sppend on average about $1000 or less for a workstation...they aren't going to spend $1500 and then have to buy expensive software too to make it compatible with an existing infrastucrture built around Windows. To make Macs work like a Windows PC would simply cost to much. Asmall company could do it for a reasonable price per se...but not a huge company with 1000's of employees.
Asisfish probbaly could change his whole office to all Mac...servers an all and do it fairly cheap...but not a fortune 500 company...they can't even switch to linux and its free...bec teh initial cost to change would to great then to just stick with Windows.
Just like Windows is teh proven enterprise platform...however Mac now could certainly compete...however the cost would be devastating to some companies because teh cost of Apple hardware is to expensive in most cases. Most business I see sppend on average about $1000 or less for a workstation...they aren't going to spend $1500 and then have to buy expensive software too to make it compatible with an existing infrastucrture built around Windows. To make Macs work like a Windows PC would simply cost to much. Asmall company could do it for a reasonable price per se...but not a huge company with 1000's of employees.
Asisfish probbaly could change his whole office to all Mac...servers an all and do it fairly cheap...but not a fortune 500 company...they can't even switch to linux and its free...bec teh initial cost to change would to great then to just stick with Windows.
#649
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 08:23 AM
There was none. Most people that jumped to OSX were those who bought systems that said Vista Capable. However those systems only met the minium specs for Vista keeping the cost down. ost would have did find if they bumped up the ram. However they also hhad cheesy grphics chips...most using the old intel chipsets that couldn't run Vista Aero fast enough...
350 million Vista users is certainly not a failure. How many users are there of OSX? Even with Vista' troubles...they still manage to almost triple the total amount of people known to use OSX.
On last count...XP user numbers are dropping ad Vista numbers are up some...Vista is a 23.5% and lets see...Apple still only has a 9.x% market worldwide...
Vista isn't failed...it just didn't taake over XP's marketshare. However Windows 7 will because developers won't be developing new applications for XP. They will require Vista as a minium...which means people will have to switch. I a guessing...buy teh time Windows 7 gets to the Service Pack 1 level...XP will have probably 25% usage...
350 million Vista users is certainly not a failure. How many users are there of OSX? Even with Vista' troubles...they still manage to almost triple the total amount of people known to use OSX.
On last count...XP user numbers are dropping ad Vista numbers are up some...Vista is a 23.5% and lets see...Apple still only has a 9.x% market worldwide...
Vista isn't failed...it just didn't taake over XP's marketshare. However Windows 7 will because developers won't be developing new applications for XP. They will require Vista as a minium...which means people will have to switch. I a guessing...buy teh time Windows 7 gets to the Service Pack 1 level...XP will have probably 25% usage...
#650
asiafish
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 23-January 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 08:53 AM
TechieXP said:
There was none. Most people that jumped to OSX were those who bought systems that said Vista Capable. However those systems only met the minium specs for Vista keeping the cost down. ost would have did find if they bumped up the ram. However they also hhad cheesy grphics chips...most using the old intel chipsets that couldn't run Vista Aero fast enough...
More like couldn't run Aero at all, in the case of the GMA 900 in the Vista Capable ThinkPad X41 I bought in late 2006. Who said it was only Vista Capable people who swtiched? Most switchers, according to Apple's research, came from Windows XP, not Vista, and no matter how much ram you through at a GMA900 system, it will never run Aero.
Once again, you haven't got a clue who the people who switched from Windows to Mac are, you just pulled yet another BS fact from your ass. If you don't know, you don't know. And guess what, you don't know.
Quote
350 million Vista users is certainly not a failure. How many users are there of OSX? Even with Vista' troubles...they still manage to almost triple the total amount of people known to use OSX.
When did I ever say Vista was a failure? I really like Vista, am using it right now in fact. What is true is that Vista's reputation was tarnished and its launch was dissappointing. I think Vista is a great OS and doesn't deserve its bad rap, but nobody, not even Microsoft, denies that it has something of an image problem.
Quote
On last count...XP user numbers are dropping ad Vista numbers are up some...Vista is a 23.5% and lets see...Apple still only has a 9.x% market worldwide...
I should hope XP numbers are dropping and Vista numbers are rising, thats what happens when the old OS gets older and the new OS gets stabilizing service packs. 9.x% worldwide market share is awesome, by the way. Does HP have 9% worldwide marketshare? Dell? Toshiba? Wow, that would make Apple number one or number two of all PC venders, at worst number 3.
Quote
Vista isn't failed...it just didn't taake over XP's marketshare. However Windows 7 will because developers won't be developing new applications for XP. They will require Vista as a minium...which means people will have to switch. I a guessing...buy teh time Windows 7 gets to the Service Pack 1 level...XP will have probably 25% usage...
That has nothing to do with anything, previous generation OS always gets left behind, like Windows 2000 today on the PC platform and 10.3 Panther on the Mac platform.
#651
rgreen4
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,722
- Joined: 22-October 06
- Location:S. Georgia
Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:52 AM
asiafish said:
I should hope XP numbers are dropping and Vista numbers are rising, thats what happens when the old OS gets older and the new OS gets stabilizing service packs. 9.x% worldwide market share is awesome, by the way. Does HP have 9% worldwide marketshare? Dell? Toshiba? Wow, that would make Apple number one or number two of all PC venders, at worst number 3.
Actually, on a global basis, they are not even in the top 5, and rank number 4 (end of Q1) in the U.S. Source - Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows Quoting Gartner and IDC.
In the U.S. it's HP, Dell, Acer, Apple and Toshiba. Globally, Lenovo replaces Apple as number 4 and the others are the same.
#652
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:23 AM
Duh...According to Apple. Most people you're talking about never even used Vista. So I didn't even mention them...see you're so ready to say BS. I specifically said...most people who SWITCH FROM Vista to OSX was because of the Vista Capale issue. I specific said SWITCHED FRO VISTA TOO OSX. I NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT XP USERS...go back and read. I never mentioned anyone who oved from XP directly to OSX.
So you put words in my mouth just so you can say I oulled bullshit out my ass. You hate me that much?
And Vista and Aero would run...just not well...and since you can't upgrade teh graphics in laptops there was no fix. However I installed Vista on a laptop that has the 845 chipset and even mith a max of 1GB of ram it ran Vista Aero...it was VERY VERY slow and unusable...but it worked. From what I saw and read...the GMA900 was simply underspec'd and many of those system came standard with only 512MB of ram or 1GB tops...so if your OS and appz stole half...there wasn't enough left to run Vista...or Aero. If you simply only install the OS...and used only the appz in the OS..Vista with Aero would run on GMA900...it just wouldn't be fast. Thus not worth the investment to try. Not working period..and not working properly is not quite the same thing.
I never said u said Vista was a failure...i was commenting to someone else I believe. I would never put words in your mouth like u do me.
So you put words in my mouth just so you can say I oulled bullshit out my ass. You hate me that much?
And Vista and Aero would run...just not well...and since you can't upgrade teh graphics in laptops there was no fix. However I installed Vista on a laptop that has the 845 chipset and even mith a max of 1GB of ram it ran Vista Aero...it was VERY VERY slow and unusable...but it worked. From what I saw and read...the GMA900 was simply underspec'd and many of those system came standard with only 512MB of ram or 1GB tops...so if your OS and appz stole half...there wasn't enough left to run Vista...or Aero. If you simply only install the OS...and used only the appz in the OS..Vista with Aero would run on GMA900...it just wouldn't be fast. Thus not worth the investment to try. Not working period..and not working properly is not quite the same thing.
I never said u said Vista was a failure...i was commenting to someone else I believe. I would never put words in your mouth like u do me.
#653
asiafish
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 23-January 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:26 AM
TechieXP said:
Duh...According to Apple. Most people you're talking about never even used Vista. So I didn't even mention them...see you're so ready to say BS. I specifically said...most people who SWITCH FROM Vista to OSX was because of the Vista Capale issue. I specific said SWITCHED FRO VISTA TOO OSX. I NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT XP USERS...go back and read. I never mentioned anyone who oved from XP directly to OSX.
And how do YOU know what made Vista users switch? Guess what, Vista Capable was three-years-ago, but Macs are still selling well.
Quote
So you put words in my mouth just so you can say I oulled bullshit out my ass. You hate me that much?
No, I don't even know you. I do know that you make up facts on a regular basis and just about everything you say about Apple (or BMW) is absolutely flat wrong.
Quote
And Vista and Aero would run...just not well...and since you can't upgrade teh graphics in laptops there was no fix. However I installed Vista on a laptop that has the 845 chipset and even mith a max of 1GB of ram it ran Vista Aero...it was VERY VERY slow and unusable...but it worked. From what I saw and read...the GMA900 was simply underspec'd and many of those system came standard with only 512MB of ram or 1GB tops...so if your OS and appz stole half...there wasn't enough left to run Vista...or Aero. If you simply only install the OS...and used only the appz in the OS..Vista with Aero would run on GMA900...it just wouldn't be fast. Thus not worth the investment to try. Not working period..and not working properly is not quite the same thing.
Aero does not run on the GMA900, period. Never has, and unless Intel or Microsoft goes back and engineers new drivers or code, never will.
#654
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:34 AM
too fast...i couldn't get therough my email fast enough.
Last I checked..Dell had a 30% computer market share...thats computers alone.
Since Apple is no longer Apple Computer Inc...but just Apple Inc...they are like Sony in that they sell lots of hardware from different markets...However for Sony computers could siply be dropped and it would have little effect on Sony sales...not teh sae for Apple. As with Dell. They do sell other people stuff...but computers is there total business and thus they would certainly be better at it then others. Like Mc Donalds...they are a hambrger joint...and chicken there is terrible....unlike Popeyes or Kentucky :-)
And as I stated as fact before...Dell sold 15 million units in Q1...Apple sold 2.5 million...however when you translate that into pricing...Apple sold 5 million as each single sell cost teh same as 2 of Dell sales.
I think Dell makes better computer than HP IMHO...But that Touchsmart is awesome.
Last I checked..Dell had a 30% computer market share...thats computers alone.
Since Apple is no longer Apple Computer Inc...but just Apple Inc...they are like Sony in that they sell lots of hardware from different markets...However for Sony computers could siply be dropped and it would have little effect on Sony sales...not teh sae for Apple. As with Dell. They do sell other people stuff...but computers is there total business and thus they would certainly be better at it then others. Like Mc Donalds...they are a hambrger joint...and chicken there is terrible....unlike Popeyes or Kentucky :-)
And as I stated as fact before...Dell sold 15 million units in Q1...Apple sold 2.5 million...however when you translate that into pricing...Apple sold 5 million as each single sell cost teh same as 2 of Dell sales.
I think Dell makes better computer than HP IMHO...But that Touchsmart is awesome.
#655
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:53 AM
Yes 3 years ago..and Vista is still selling well.
Point taken.
As far as what I said about BMW...i gave you the link..did you read it. It said everything i said. I didn't add or take away.
GMA900...have you personally tried it?
There are several users who have Aero running on GMA9xx...look around..
In my case my dell had the same chipset...accept I had an ATI x1300 instead of Intel native solution...
However I did personally install Vista Ultimate on GMA900 and I siply had to turn Aero on manually. It can be done..its not a hack. It si just the installaition will not turn Aero on by default because it slows the system down. Until you actually do it, don't say it can't be done. Because it can and has been.
Point taken.
As far as what I said about BMW...i gave you the link..did you read it. It said everything i said. I didn't add or take away.
GMA900...have you personally tried it?
There are several users who have Aero running on GMA9xx...look around..
In my case my dell had the same chipset...accept I had an ATI x1300 instead of Intel native solution...
However I did personally install Vista Ultimate on GMA900 and I siply had to turn Aero on manually. It can be done..its not a hack. It si just the installaition will not turn Aero on by default because it slows the system down. Until you actually do it, don't say it can't be done. Because it can and has been.
#656
asiafish
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 23-January 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:19 AM
TechieXP said:
Yes 3 years ago..and Vista is still selling well.
Point taken.
As far as what I said about BMW...i gave you the link..did you read it. It said everything i said. I didn't add or take away.
GMA900...have you personally tried it?
There are several users who have Aero running on GMA9xx...look around..
In my case my dell had the same chipset...accept I had an ATI x1300 instead of Intel native solution...
However I did personally install Vista Ultimate on GMA900 and I siply had to turn Aero on manually. It can be done..its not a hack. It si just the installaition will not turn Aero on by default because it slows the system down. Until you actually do it, don't say it can't be done. Because it can and has been.
Point taken.
As far as what I said about BMW...i gave you the link..did you read it. It said everything i said. I didn't add or take away.
GMA900...have you personally tried it?
There are several users who have Aero running on GMA9xx...look around..
In my case my dell had the same chipset...accept I had an ATI x1300 instead of Intel native solution...
However I did personally install Vista Ultimate on GMA900 and I siply had to turn Aero on manually. It can be done..its not a hack. It si just the installaition will not turn Aero on by default because it slows the system down. Until you actually do it, don't say it can't be done. Because it can and has been.
You obviously have a GMA950 then, because the GMA900 is not capable of running Aero because Intel has not written a WDM driver for it.
And why would I read a link to incorrect information? BMW service interval for their passenger cars (exclusing exotic M models) is 15,000 miles. A ling that discusses a 3,000 mile oil change is either related to exotics or at least a decade out of date.
#657
asiafish
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 23-January 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:23 AM
Quote
GMA900...have you personally tried it?
Yes, it doesn't work because there is no WDDM driver for it.
Quote
There are several users who have Aero running on GMA9xx...look around..
9xx is not the same as 900, which was the subject of Vista capable. The GMA 950 is Aero capable, the GMA 900 is not.
Quote
In my case my dell had the same chipset...accept I had an ATI x1300 instead of Intel native solution...
Then you didn't have a GMA 900 because if you did, it wouldn't run Aero.
Quote
However I did personally install Vista Ultimate on GMA900 and I siply had to turn Aero on manually. It can be done..its not a hack. It si just the installaition will not turn Aero on by default because it slows the system down. Until you actually do it, don't say it can't be done. Because it can and has been.
No it cannot be done because there is no driver for the GMA 900 that supports Aero. Intel's explanation is that the shaders in the GMA 900 were finalized prior to Vista and cannot perform to an adequate level. Intel has no WDDM driver for the GMA 900. Microsoft has no WDDM driver for the GMA 900. No driver, no Aero.
#658
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:41 AM
I never said the info was right or wrong. I never said what model or anything...all I said is I read it in balc and white..and I didn't pull he info out my ass as you said i did...I simply wanted to show you proof that I read it. your choice to read or not. And that site looked pretty up to date.
#659
asiafish
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 23-January 09
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:43 AM
TechieXP said:
I never said the info was right or wrong. I never said what model or anything...all I said is I read it in balc and white..and I didn't pull he info out my ass as you said i did...I simply wanted to show you proof that I read it. your choice to read or not. And that site looked pretty up to date.
You said that BMW needs an oil change every 3,000 miles, a WRONG statement.
#660
TechieXP
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Chicago / Sarasota
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:55 AM
Whether the statement was wrong or right isn't the point. The point was I read it...and I linked it to show you. I can't control what I read no more than you can. It simply says you're wrong and like me you don't like being wrong. I never said what I read was wrong or right...i simply stated as a fact I read it..and I show'd you...you simply chose not to read it. The statement itself may be incorrect in itself...point taken I have learned something new. Thank you...it still doesn't change teh fact..I still read it...and I prove I read it and I didn't simply pull it out of my @$$ as you said. I know you can't always believe what you read. I never said I believe it was correct..I simply said I read it...
BTW...since you're Canadian...cool...I have't been to Canada since 75...we visited the CN tower. Has it changed a lot inside? :-)
BTW...since you're Canadian...cool...I have't been to Canada since 75...we visited the CN tower. Has it changed a lot inside? :-)
