Why are we using MAC? Is it a religion or there is a true advantage?

[Uhooru]

Louis, like you I am a new switcher to the mac with an imac and all the ram it will hold

(2gig). It replaces my beloved home built AMD XP 3200 system mainly because I use them

at school and liked them and the iMac has such a nifty footprint. Got that 19"NEC monitor

off my desk. Performance wise its a bit faster overall than my PC but there is one PS filter

plugin I use that was noticbly slower until I hooked up an external drive and made it the

scratch disk, it evened that out. The total overall speed gain is there but not huge.

 

I find myself loving the mac OS and here's the main difference in the computers, its the

really seamless way things work toghether on the imac and the fact that you can do so

much at one time. I was rendering a video, scanning an image, working in PS and surfing

the web between files and while it probably slowed down the video encoding it just chugs

along. That would NEVER happen on my pc, it would definately freeze or crash. So I'm a

happy camper though I still have and will keep my PC as its a perfectly good and there are

some things on it I will use.

 

I'd second the advice that said try it for a while, get into a real photographic workflow and

see if you don't warm up to it. Other wise, sell it and move on:)

 

Good luck!

[fred_bonnett2]

Hi Jon:

 

Did not mean to make you feel insecure.

 

It is widely reported in business journals, that Apple makes money but not from its computer line. Apparently the Ipod line is also starting to falter.

 

Just think what it costs Apple per computer to develop an OS to compete with MS --- that is why a MAC consumer gets less performance per dollar compared to any PC. Software developers are hesitant to develop new software for such a low market share platform and will also be hesitant to rewrite existing software for the new Intel processor. Apple will be left with an overpriced, under performing computer that lacks software but has an Intel processor --- I leave it to you to fill in the steps that will lead MACs exclusively running PC software.

 

Apples future will be as a design studio with a few innovative niche products --- when Apples megalomaniacal leader, Jobs, goes it will turn to dust and disappear. How is Jobs doing in his battle against cancer?

 

Remember that the only reason MACs currently exist is because Bill Gates invested $150 million in Apple --- and the reason he did that was to avoid antitrust charges. It is interesting to speculate on how Apple investors, such as yourself, fostered MS market dominance.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Apple I came out in the bicentennial year; 1976 in April..<BR><BR><a href="http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html"><i>I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.<BR><BR>

 

 

 

Bill Gates<BR><BR>

 

General Partner, Micro-Soft<BR><BR></a>February 3, 1976<BR><BR>

 

An Open Letter to Hobbyists <BR><BR></i>@ FIN

[jake_holt]

" How is Jobs doing in his battle against cancer?"

 

Wow, what a fabulous a**hole. Anyway, in my experience, people either "get" why

Macs are better or they don't. If you don't, it doesn't matter - Macs and PC's can both

do just about anything you want them to do, with the proper knowledge. Macs will

cost a small percentage more for the same power, but not 4X more. People that do

"get" why Macs are better will often cite aesthetics, both in hardware & software

design. Great aesthetics don't necessarily make it "better", they just make it more

enjoyable to use day in and day out. If you don't care about that aspect, then a Mac

isn't worth any extra money. <p>

It's the same kind of thing with just about any product - there is a premium product

that some people will never think is worth the money, and you can never convince

them because you have a different point of view. That's not what they are attuned to.

Take cars - I, for

one, would never buy an American car (except maybe a Jeep or a Corvette) because I

think that they look horrible. I see plastic and bad design - millions of people see a

"transportation device" (or "functional computer") and would think that spending

extra on a Honda is a waste of money. They don't "get it," why the Honda is better, so

they think I wasted money. I "see" why the Honda is better, it's designed better, it

looks better, so I think they bought a piece of junk. Same story - PC vs. Mac.

The advantage is only there, when it comes to aesthetics, if you "get it." If they look

the same to you, get the best deal available. <p>

Think of something that you don't care about, and that some people spend tons of

money on. For me, I'll say wine. I can be satisfied with a $10.00 bottle of wine. I can't

taste the difference between that and a hundred dollar bottle - never have, never will.

Tons of people will laugh at me because I don't get it, and I don't care because the

ten dollar wine gets the job done for me. Some of those wine connoisseurs use PCs

instead of Macs, and I don't get that either, so to each his own.

[mdickerson]

<p><i>Just think what it costs Apple per computer to develop an OS to compete with MS --- that is why a MAC consumer gets less performance per dollar compared to any PC.</i></p>

 

<p>No, actually, Apple is not developing an OS. OS X is cobbled together out of FreeBSD, Mach, OpenLDAP, CUPS, SAMBA, and at least a thousand other free, mature, open-source, Unix based components. That is the real reason Microsoft is in for some hard times. Every market moves towards commoditisation as it matures, and the rest of the world software industry (except Microsoft) is well on its way. Apple, for example, doesn't need to sell OS X because they have another source of income: premium-priced hardware. Microsoft has nothing but an outdated business model that relies on deliberately incompatible software and proprietary data formats that force you to buy "upgrades" every 18 months.</p>

[samuel_dilworth]

Fred, you are hilarious. Apple's profit margin on its line of computers is much higher than

the industry average, sometimes topping 20%. Apple is the world's <a href="http://

www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=248">most influential brand</a>. It is

a massive company and growing fast. Over the last nine months Apple's personal

computer sales grew at three times the industry average. Mac OS X has a 40% growth rate,

and is so far ahead of Windows (technically) that Microsoft's increasingly-troubled feature

set for Longhorn reads like Panther's specs (last year's operating system). Tiger has sold 2

million copies in 6 weeks. Additionally, the fact that there are over 12,000 apps available

for Mac OS X makes your claim that developers aren't developing software for the Mac a

bit hollow. There are sometimes hundreds of different pieces of software available to do

the same general task for OS X.<p>

 

Suggest you get a Mac and see what you're missing. ;-) That $150 million in 1997 has

helped Apple come a long way in the last eight years.

[john falkenstine]

Once upon a time, long ago, I rented time on a MacIntosh and wrote my resume using Aldus Pagemaker. I went to work for a local Aircraft Engineering company that did all of its work on little Macs. By the end of the day our eyeballs were exhausted. But..we did wiring diagrams rapidly. By the late nineties Mac's advantage was fading rapidly. Underperforming, grossly overpriced. My last Power Pc, (a 6100 running at 66MHZ) would not "go" until I purchased very expensive additional RAM, set me back over $2,000. At work, I started phasing out the expensive Macs for a massive changeover to PCs that were cheaper and faster and whose configuration couldn't constantly be corrupted by undisciplined co workers, including one who thought he was hiding his porn pictures, a problem I solved with a security escort "out the door." While I like Macs, their mystique and supposed graphical advantage wore off long ago. BTW they still sell with a mouse that doesn't even have a scroll wheel....I still have the PowerPC 6100 as a very expensive monitor support.

[fred_bonnett2]

Jake, Michael and Samuel:

 

You fellows are perfect examples of what is wrong with Apple. Jobs and Company depends upon customers who will irrationally support his overpriced, under-performing computers.

 

When Jobs is gone Apple will devolve to its natural, Scully-like, state.

 

With the final capitulation to Intel processors (X-86s), all of Apples software and OS will have to be rewritten.

 

My conclusion stands --- MAC is a dying brand.

[doug_adama1]

Fred, I'm convinced. With Job's dying of cancer and the death of Mac inevitable, I am tossing

my Mac in the dumpster. Instead I am going to embrace viruses, spy ware and reinstallations

until the holy grail of operating systems come out and we can bask in the eternal light of

Longhorn.

[jake_holt]

Fred - Bill Gates depends on people who support ugly, utilitarian computers either

because 1) they are gamers, 2) they don't know any better, 3) they are afraid of

something different, or 4) because they just want something cheap. Regardless if Jobs

leaves or not, if Apple starts sucking I will happily buy a PC if it's better than a Mac.

That PC doesn't exist right now. I'm not brainwashed or illogical, I just appreciate

quality, and Apple consistently puts out high quality products. How's Longhorn

coming? By the way, I'm about to head to a job where I work on a PC that crashes 3-4

times a week at least. My Mac here at home has run OSX for 3 years with no system

crashes. Mmmmm, wonder why I feel the way I do? It's very illogical to take evidence

into account and make an informed decision.

[fred_bonnett2]

Jake: You will not have to buy a PC --- Apple is changing the MACs into PCs.

 

Doug: Good thinking --- get yourself into a high performance PC --- you will be pleasantly surprised how fast PS can run.

 

Samuel: 20% gross profit margins nicely explain why MACs are over priced under performers. To my knowledge Apple does not breakout net profits by product line --- so we will just have to depend on published reports that they are losing money on MACs and that Ipod profit margins are starting to suffer.

 

Really guys, keep your hardware and software but do not recommend staggering Apple brands to neophytes.

[andrew_rodney1]

-->Jake: You will not have to buy a PC --- Apple is changing the MACs into PCs.

 

Because they are changing the processor? So if a Mac and PC use the same hard drive,

display, video card and USB card reader, they are the same? You realize this is nonsense.

What makes a Mac not a PC is the operating system. It?s totally immaterial what processor

drives the OS. OSX isn?t going to be Windows thankfully by the simple addition of an Intel

processor. Just as Windows XP isn?t OSX when you hook up an Apple Cinema display.

[fred_bonnett2]

Andrew: Wishful thinking on your part. The first step Apple will take is to make a dual OS --- one that runs both revised MAC programs and PC programs. Next, programmers will not rewrite programs to run under the new Apple OS if they already have a PC version. After that Apple will let the OS age because it will not make sense to put large sums of money into a separate OS when they only have a 2 or 3% market share. How long do you think it will be before MAC is just another name for PC? I would guess 3 to 5 years.

 

In the meantime Apple will use the MAC brand as a cash cow --- they will invest as little as possible in the brand and price their offerings at what the market will bear --- given the devoted nature of MAC consumers, they can expect to bear quite a lot.

[andrew_rodney1]

> Andrew: Wishful thinking on your part. The first step Apple will take is to

> make a dual OS --- one that runs both revised MAC programs and PC programs.

 

It already does this! Yes, you need to purchase Virtual PC which (the big cost) is buying a

PC operating system. You are going to have to do this anyway. Bill isn't going to give away

a copy of Windows to Mac users any more than he's going to give it away to Windows

users. I currently run XP Pro on my G5. The fact I'm using a Moto chip is immaterial.

 

> Next, programmers will not rewrite programs to run under the new Apple OS if

> they already have a PC version.

 

Again, not so since OSX is OSX despite the processor. I can run and for tech support do

run Photoshop CS2 under Windows on my Mac and the OSX version. Which do you think I

prefer? Even if the Windows version were faster, I'd still be using OSX.

 

> After that Apple will let the OS age because

> it will not make sense to put large sums of money into a separate OS when they

> only have a 2 or 3% market share.

 

That could have been said 10 years ago and it's no more true today then it was 10 years

ago.

 

> In the meantime Apple will use the MAC brand as a cash cow --- they will

> invest as little as possible in the brand and price their offerings...

 

ALL speculation that has no basis in reality nor any reason wht a Mac user would feel any

differently today then they have about the Mac since 1984. It's all about the OS and the

hardware surrounding the chip. It's all about how the company handles tech support and

their customers. The chipset doesn't make the computer any more than the hard drive

does.

[fred_bonnett2]

Andrew: Just wait and see if there is a dual OS when MACs start arriving with Intel processors --- if there is you can probably figure I am right.

 

Over the years we have seen Apples computer market share consistently drop from around 25% (or higher) to about 2.5% --- there has not been any advantages to owning a MAC for at least 4 years and in fact, there are cost and speed disadvantages --- that is not the sort of base upon which you build a sustainable product.

[mdickerson]

<p><i>The first step Apple will take is to make a dual OS --- one that runs both revised MAC programs and PC programs.</i></p>

 

<p>Sorry, but if you knew anything about operating systems, you would know that this sentence makes no sense. Changing CPUs makes zero difference with respect to compatibility with binary executables. Go ahead and try downloading an RPM of the Gimp for Linux and see how well it runs on Windows XP. Yes, it's written for the same chips. If you want to run Windows binaries on OS X you can do it under emulation, as Andrew has said, and that will not change. Not very many people bother because emulation always sucks to a greater or lesser degree.</p>

 

<p>It's kind of humorous that I sit here defending Apple because really I could care less; I'm a Debian developer. I am only interested in OS X to the extent that it embraces an open, standards-based architecture. When OS X does this (Samba, X11), it is useful to me and I get nice shiny hardware to boot. When it doesn't (iTunes, iPhoto), I am not interested.</p>

 

<p>Most of the Mac-bashing on this thread has been based on outdated and incorrect information. Yes, the 68k Macs were underpowered and System 9 was a dead end. That is why Apple replaced the 68k with PPC and System 9 with OS X. Now PPC is not keeping up with Intel and AMD so Apple will change again.</p>

 

<p>Anyone that is so positive that Apple is a dying brand should get their short orders in to their stockbrokers, because for some reason Apple stock has increased in value by 1500% since 1998.</p>

[fred_bonnett2]

Michael: Let me quote from 6/6/05 issue of eWEEK, p. 40: the story (i.e. Apple going to Intel chips) breathed new life into the recurring rumor that an x86-compatible version of OS X is in the works.

 

Now if you do not know what you are talking about why do you bother to post.

 

Further, the last thing any investor would think about when shorting a stock is what will happen in 3 to 5 years. Have you no idea of time frames?

 

Who cares what the stock has done since 1998 --- I am speculating on what will happen to MACs in the next 3 to 5 years. The speculation is based upon a number of things but the stock price is not one of them. Try to separate, in your mind, the company Apple from one of their products, the MAC.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <i>My Mac here at home has run OSX for 3 years with no system crashes. Mmmmm, wonder why I feel the way I do? It's very illogical to take evidence into account and make an informed decision.</i><BR><BR>Here at the print shop one old RIP box has a Pentium 166; with 64bit PCI slots; ie it is server with alot of ram; alot of L2 cache. It runs NT 3.51 ; and the RIP software; and still is way quicker than the poster printer(s); TWO it can drive at once; while ripping files; and receiving files over the LAN. Some PC's with good software and hardware can never require an reboots at all; and slug it out for many years; long after all support is gone; doing their jobs faithfully. The designers of this RIP box choose a design that works; and didnt fart around with frilly Mac looks and colored cases; that add no value as a tool. PC Boxes like this that go on for years not requiring any service must scare Mac folks; and thus "they just dont get it" ; when another NT based box is used; then another. Alot of robustness with a Mac is because the hardware is controlled; and there are less futzzers; less crap to goof them up.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Fred Bonnett,

 

You seem pretty sure of yourself on this matter. Others who have taken an opposite

position have stated what their background is and how they make their living. What is

your background and what do you do for a living? How do you come to your conclusions?

[fred_bonnett2]

Ellis: Professional photographer since 1988, BA in chemistry, MS in finance. Built first PC in Aug. 1981 when I had a choice between Jobs disastrous LISA and an IBM with 196K of RAM (more than enough at the time). Previous to that I managed and designed IT departments. I have owned used many small computers in my own companies since 1984.

 

I think if you read the posts you will see how I came to my speculations. They are all based on publicly available information. Please note that I am not saying what I wish would happen but rather what the available facts point toward.

 

Digest the facts and draw your own conclusions.

[andrew_rodney1]

-->I think if you read the posts you will see how I came to my speculations

 

Exactly what they are and as such pretty much worthless to most. Opinions and speculations

are like ass*#@!s, everyone has ones. Can we move on from this discussion now...

[stevierose]

You know, folks, this has got to be at least the 5,000th post to photo.net on this topic in the last 5 years. It always ends up the same way--degenerating into name calling rants. Perhaps we can call a moratorium on this subject for awhile?

 

Either platform can run Photoshop just fine. I use Wintel computers at work because they are the best solution to the workflow issues at work. I use Macs (perhaps I should now say "MacTel"?) at home because I prefer OS X to XP, I enjoy working in OS X more than XP. Note the word "enjoy", a subjective word if ever there was one. I would suggest that anyone considering the Mac vs PC choice try actually working for a period of time with both systems utilizing the programs and hardware that you know you will need and then purchase the one that fits you the best. Otherwise, let's give it a rest.

[john falkenstine]

BTW: In the eighties Mac had a VERY expensive box that ran both MAC OS or PC, or it appeared so. What they really did is bury BOTH a MAC and a PC in one box...it didn't work.

[ellis_vener_photography]

And that was what, 20 years ago?

[john falkenstine]

1989 was the year. The PC section stopped working after a while. The MAC part didn't work so hot either and kept forgetting files, occasionally getting angry at certain files and getting rid of them...