NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

Counterstrike.

For a long time Macs were MUCH more expensive than PCs. PCs became more popular during that time, and because they were more popular, people wrote much more software for them. Now, Macs aren't TOO much costlier than PCs, but PCs have more software, often better software (except for the OS itself), and since 90% of people use them, it's easier to find people to help you with PC problems.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

Limited compatible software library, extremely unfriendly component upgrade system (want to upgrade? Buy a new mac), standard one button mouse, the list goes on.

Besides, if everyone switched over to Macs, good money says that lots of security holes will suddenly appear. The reason why there aren't many apparent now is because so few people use them and those who do generally aren't in the business of exploiting security holes.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

I think it basically had to do with marketing back in the 80's. Apples were everywhere in public schools that could afford them. That is a good tactic to build later customer base. However what I can remember is that the "PC" version of the computer seemed to me the high tech computer with "windows". Apple just did not do a good enough job at marketing as Microsoft and the home PC makers did. Blame it on Bill Gates I say.

Because of those lame ass commercials.

I used Macs back in elemtary school, and a PC at home, and I still don't like Macs.

Anyway, that was back before they had WebSense... ah, good times. :D

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

marketing pathways.

Macs have always marketed themselves as the Business machine. the computer for the Office. PC's marketed themselves as the computer for the family. and since family members out number computer using companies...

add to that...

PC's started out cheaper than Macs. Macs were expensive because they were powerful.

then there is...

the stupid things Mac did. remember Imac... the computer with NO FLOPPY DRIVE?

so why do Macs have better security? simple. less people use Macs. so why make a virus for a machine no one uses. why learn to hack a machine that isn't widespread in use?

but I'll grant you this. someone makes a Mac only virus, and those anti-virus companies would have to scramble to get an antidote out there. and as long as Macs and PC's remain different...

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use?
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact PCs are easily accessible and modifiable. A Mac is a software hardware combination, like a Texas Instruments Calculator. A PC is just a set of hardware which you can install any software OS on that works with PCs.

Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses
Wrong. They are just less popular so not as many hackers give a shit.

and can do basically anything a PC can.
Let's see it play all these games I like.

Now, Macs aren't TOO much costlier than PCs,
If hundreds of dollars for comparable hardware configs isn't "too much costlier."
$1,649 for a MacBook vs a parallel spec'd Dell Inspiron Notebook at $1,329

The real reason is that when IBM opted to use Microsoft, in the belief that hardware would always be more profitable than software, it did not place an exclusivity clause on MS. This meant that, combined with IBM's huge distribution legacy, MS was able to sell the platform to any computer maker whereas Apple chose not to.

So you had the choice of using any brand with MS or an Apple computer with Apple OS.

This meant that PCs could become cheaper through competition, hence your Dells, whereas Apple remained expensive.

I can build my own (cheaper, faster) PC. I can't buid a Mac.

MS was able to sell the platform to any computer maker whereas Apple chose not to.

Ignore the fact Apple couldn't because Apple ties their software to the hardware under the idea that hardware will be more profitable than software.

like barringtonia said...

price and software

plus apples piss poor marketing. lousy for computers, amazing for ipods.

amazing for ipods.
It's amazing how they created a market for mp3 players where one already existed. The other mp3 manufacturers were just dicking around with the hardware still trying to sell their CD players which has cost them (and anyone who won't shell out for an overpriced iPod) to this day.

Pet Peeve! The Macs really ARE more virus resistant than PCs. Microsoft never had any interest in making PCs secure until very recently, and it shows. The current Mac OS is quite a bit more secure.

But that doesn't mean Mac users should get complacent. I'll use a house analogy: If I have a strong door with an alarm, and my neighbor has open Windows (pun intended), a robber will break in the neighbor's. But if we both have strong doors & alarms, he could get into either one; he'd just have to work harder.

The Mac is more secure than Windows, but if it had 90% market share, it still would get pwned.

Because PCs are David Mitchell :D

I can build my own (cheaper, faster) PC. I can't buid a Mac.
I can't even buid a PC... :(

Ignore the fact Apple couldn't because Apple ties their software to the hardware under the idea that hardware will be more profitable than software.

I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning here - but...it's not that Apple couldn't, it's that Apple place importance on integration and therefore want to control both the software AND hardware.

Initially it was cost. Macs were expensive as fuck, so people went with what was cheapest: PC's.

Then Apple noticed that that tactic (selling shit for cheap) worked pretty well so they did the same, and gained a bunch of ground back. Macs were technically superior (particularly in terms of the user interface) at the time, so people were still willing to put out the extra cash for a Mac.

Then Windows 95 came along. While still not to hot on a technical sense (none of MS's OS's have been strong technically, probably a result of their embrace, extend, extinguish strategy), it borrowed allot from Mac's GUI, which landed the two in court. Apple settled out of court for, what is in hindsight, dick all. While this long (several year) lawsuit dragged on, Apple was getting shafted in the market. MS had successfully cloned one of the Mac's main selling points, and PC's were much much cheaper.

So Apple tried to reinvent itself. It failed. Twice. By this time, people were betting that Apple would have gone belly up had they not settled out of court with MS.

After this Apple bought NeXT, and started to get shit right (ie iMac, iPod), but were still suffering from all the market share they lost. Microsoft/PC's had nearly the entire market to themselves. Since then, Apple has slowly whittled its way back into the market, but still suffers from the terrible image it earned itself.

Apple has pretty much covered that up. It also has done a dandy job of hiding its evilness too. So what is the main drawback for buying an Apple is their is not much software to buy for it. Mainly they have worked it down to just games. Apple spent the last few years putting out an Apple version of the typical things they think their users will need. Word is, Apple is doing some work trying to jump into the gaming market. It wouldn't be with OS X, but rather a console or portable. I think their strategy is to draw in developers, and hope the software follows.

So basically, it is because there is not a shit load of games for the Mac, like there is for Windows.

It's amazing how they created a market for mp3 players where one already existed. The other mp3 manufacturers were just dicking around with the hardware still trying to sell their CD players which has cost them (and anyone who won't shell out for an overpriced iPod) to this day.

its such an amazing feat that i wonder if satan isnt involved there somehwere.

Jobbs probably had to sell his soul to the devil to save Apple's ass. Even with it's best efforts to reassert itself into the PC market, it's archaic refusal to untie the Mac OS from the hardware has got to be keeping it barely earning anything. It has to be making it's money in iPods. Like Nintendo in the handheld market. When there is practically no one else in the market to compete with (either through fact or anti-competitive edging out), you are going to be making assloads of cash.

It's not that amazing - Apple had a great brand at the time, a brand that was inaccessible to the majority of people. Apple made that brand accessible through the iPod and people snapped them up.

The second thing is that it comes back to integration, most mp3 players were annoying in terms of downloading songs, the i-Pod was beautifully integrated with i-Tunes, making it very very simple.

A combination of those 2 factors led to the domination of the i-Pod and allow Apple to get away with a DAMN BATTERY THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED!

the stupid things Mac did. remember Imac... the computer with NO FLOPPY DRIVE?

so why do Macs have better security? simple. less people use Macs. so why make a virus for a machine no one uses. why learn to hack a machine that isn't widespread in use?
iMac was one of Apple's greatest successes. If it wasn't for the iMac, Apple would be a thing of the past. Also: floppies are worthless.


Mac is more secure, however, I dare you to find me an OS that wouldn't get hacked if it had 90% market share. It is pretty much an impossible task. It would be like reducing the world's crime rate to 0. But if Mac and Windows had the same market share, Windows would still get hacked more.

The second thing is that it comes back to integration, most mp3 players were annoying in terms of downloading songs,
Because there was no service except underground illegal ones that kept getting shutdown.

the i-Pod was beautifully integrated with i-Tunes, making it very very simple.
A "beautiful" integration to the exclusion of integrating iTunes with any other mp3 player (unlike every other media player) keeping it difficult to download songs therefore forcing people to get an iPod or find another way to get songs legally (nigh impossible because Apple has a number of agreements and all the other music services combined don't offer 1/3 of the music iTunes does). iTunes is a piece of invasive trash and the iPod-iTunes "beautiful" integration is the subject of an antitrust lawsuit.

A combination of those 2 factors led to the domination of the i-Pod and allow Apple to get away with a DAMN BATTERY THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED!
Wrong. A massive viral marketing campaign by Apple combined with a non-existent marketing campaign by all other mp3 player makers (including the forerunner Creative) gave Apple the entire mp3 market allowing them to get away with anything they want.

I'm not commenting on whether i-Tunes itself is beautiful or not, it was very well integrated with i-Pod - don't take it from me, try the head of Sony

"i-Pod is a great device, but it doesn't sell a lot of content. What we didn't do well, that Steve Jobs did, was i-Tunes. Howard Stringer – Sony CEO"

Second, a massive viral campaign would have gone nowhere without a great brand to leverage

~
And people try to tell me that Apple is not evil.:rolleyes:

I'm not commenting on whether i-Tunes itself is beautiful or not, it was very well integrated with i-Pod - don't take it from me, try the head of Sony

"i-Pod is a great device, but it doesn't sell a lot of content. What we didn't do well, that Steve Jobs did, was i-Tunes. Howard Stringer – Sony CEO"
That has nothing to do with their integration.

Second, a massive viral campaign would have gone nowhere without a great brand to leverage
Ridiculous. A nobody could have taken the market had they actually advertised their mp3 player as zealously as Apple.

And people try to tell me that Apple is not evil.:rolleyes:

Apple isn't evil. Apple is just a company doing what it does to get money, same as Microsoft. The exact same kind of marketing techniques, in fact. Nintendo does it too, and so does Sony, and Toshiba and Mitsubishi and Ford and Samsung and any other bloody company you can think of.

Lock in-effect. People do not change to the better OS but to the one everybody has :(

That has nothing to do with their integration.

How so? The quote is pointing out that Sony had plenty of mp3s that weren't selling and he points to the integration of -Pod with i-Tunes as a reason.

Ridiculous. A nobody could have taken the market had they actually advertised their mp3 player as zealously as Apple.

Beware the power of the brand you should young Luke

[QUOTE=Teh_pantless_hero;12425139]That has nothing to do with their integration.[QUOTE]

How so? The quote is pointing out that Sony had plenty of mp3s that weren't selling and he points to the integration of -Pod with i-Tunes as a reason.

Macs are just a fancy PC with proprietry bits added (as Apple does) so you can't put on another OS without an Apple OS.

You'll find you could actually hack Mac OS X to work on PC (it's been done)

The quote had to do with content provision, not device and software integration.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

Maybe some additional comments from a bystander in this war: Mac and Darwin are IMHO still not integrated well, which causese a number of security holes. Asecurity hole is not a virus. A security hole is a glitch which allows code to get into the system, processes to elevate their rights.... General Niceness(tm), a virus exploits these holes. While some things in Mac OS X were horrible kludges, there were not many applications exploiting them.

You equal PC with Wintendo-box. You can run lots of secure OSes on PCs, just most people don't. For security, shun windows, shun Mac OS X and use OpenBSD.

While I agree that the Windows-GUI is horrible, Mac OS X is as bad or worse.

Macs are just a fancy PC with proprietry bits added (as Apple does) so you can't put on another OS without an Apple OS.

You'll find you could actually hack Mac OS X to work on PC (it's been done)

There are INTEL macs, which use another BIOS, there are other Macs, which use the PowerPC architecture and are thus incompatible with Windows (they can run many OpenSource OSes however)

The quote had to do with content provision, not device and software integration.

Understand your point - but are you saying i-Tunes already had all the music before the i-Pod came out, or did the success of the i-Pod allow Apple to sign deals for content provision - I'm truly ignorant on that question

To back up - http://playlistmag.com/features/2006/10/ipodfive/index.php

Note the first reason is 'integration'

Understand your point - but are you saying i-Tunes already had all the music before the i-Pod came out, or did the success of the i-Pod allow Apple to sign deals for content provision - I'm truly ignorant on that question

Well, Apple did not start selling the music until it had the iPod out for a generation or two (they are at gen 5 btw).

A word on Mac security. (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513)

Well, Apple did not start selling the music until it had the iPod out for a generation or two (they are at gen 5 btw).

Yes, I lied about my ignorance

I like being able to right click.

Macs just mostly lost the war for the major demographics. PCs were easier. Macs didn't win as many good game designers making games for them. Microsoft is an extremely successful and competitive business - they may not know computers as good as Macs (though I think they do, you might not agree if you're a diehard mac fan), but for damn sure they know business better than Apple does. Bill Gates > That Other Guy.

Just look at those goofy commercials.

As things are now for me, I use a 2nd generation G4 Mac (with no internet connection, and running OS 9.2) for making music with ProTools LE. But I use a PC for everything Internet and most games.

Neither Macs nor PCs are any good. What you need is a NOWT (Nailed On Wall Technology).

Neither Macs nor PCs are any good. What you need is a NOWT (Nailed On Wall Technology).

Damn! That's hot! I'm throwing out my dell laptop when I get home after work :D

I like being able to right click.

Check the awesome new ubermouse that Mac have out - which incidentally came with my sexy-stuffs new Mac, didn't have to buy it seperately. A million buttons and it glows with a soft golden light!

(May have exaggerated slightly, but it is hot.)

Apple isn't evil.

Hmm... I remember that Apple was accused of using slave labour for the manufacturing of the first few generations of iPods last year. If true, not really a plus.

Besides, if everyone switched over to Macs, good money says that lots of security holes will suddenly appear. The reason why there aren't many apparent now is because so few people use them and those who do generally aren't in the business of exploiting security holes.

agreed.


i'd also say that Apple is just one company. the genious of the IBM PC was to make the architechture an open platform (pretty much) for other manafacturers and companies to get behind. therefore the PC vs Mac arguement is simply a case of one company vs an entire industry. from a PR perspective alone you can guess who's going to win.

however recently Apple have been brilliant in their PR strategies and generating a brand that fits in with the modern PR zeitgeist of not selling a product, but selling a lifestyle. the PC group has yet to catch onto that in a big way, still selling by features and benefits.


Apple has done surprisingly well at holding its own, as a company, against these odds. however, of course, Microsoft is the king of the PC pile, and have, by no stretch of the imagination, done a lot better for themselves by capitalising on the open PC platform... largely by not making it quite so open :p

i stand by MS though as somebody needs to set a standard of quality and benchmark useability... not to mention tie in global filetypes to a common standard. i can't imagine how fragmented the world of computing would be without Microsoft to be frank.

Also: floppies are worthless.

Two words: Answer Files.

The second thing is that it comes back to integration, most mp3 players were annoying in terms of downloading songs, the i-Pod was beautifully integrated with i-Tunes, making it very very simple.
ah yes, Fisher Price computing... :P

Jobbs probably had to sell his soul to the devil to save Apple's ass. Even with it's best efforts to reassert itself into the PC market, it's archaic refusal to untie the Mac OS from the hardware has got to be keeping it barely earning anything. It has to be making it's money in iPods. Like Nintendo in the handheld market. When there is practically no one else in the market to compete with (either through fact or anti-competitive edging out), you are going to be making assloads of cash.

that's particularly one of the things that always strikes me as a win for MS and PCs over Macs.
Windows has to cope with not only hugely varying technologies and component parts within the PC, made by different manafacturers and all working a bit differently, proprietary drivers, etc... but also it has to cope with the multitude of different peripherals with the same problem.

Macs and the Mac OS, however, are built to work specifically with one set of designed hardware. ditto for most mac peripherals (ipod, etc)

its little suprise that people tend to have fewer computer problems when using Macs for this exact reason. its hardware and software built to work together. Windows does an amazing job of being stable (well, XP is... not sure about before) and coping with the endless variation of the PC market.


does this mean that PCs and Windows should switch over to tying hardware and software together a la Apple? hell no. i like my choice, maybe not so much in my OS but i terms of the components and peripherals i choose to use in my PC. plus upgrading PCs is easy.

ah yes, Fisher Price computing... :P

The battle for programmers is to make more idiot-proof programs against a universe that produce more idiots. So far the universe is winning : )

i would say two things primarily. the range of applications available off the shelf, and the closed propriatory nature of the whole mac phylosopy. other then that, they'd be equal all the way arround.

if ibum had kept their isa bus propriatory the way apple kept their stuff, and they tried to but soon saw the light of reality and opportunity and opened up instead, we'd probably be running something other then intel chips and something other then micro-soft opperating systems.

i really think if apple hadn't "slayn the dragon" and instead worked out some sort of deal licensing them to second source apple tecnology, we'd be living in a VERY different world today.

=^^=
.../\...

The HURD;12425212']There are INTEL macs, which use another BIOS, there are other Macs, which use the PowerPC architecture and are thus incompatible with Windows (they can run many OpenSource OSes however)

I do realise there was the PowerPC Macs, but all new Macs have same hardware used by PCs. Actually, Apple had been doing a sneaky. They had writing an Intel and PowerPC Mac OS version concurrently starting with Mac OS X - and when they announced Intel Macs (to the shock of Mac users), they already had the OS written.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

The reason why Macs have "less security holes like viruses" is not because of some intrinsic quality of design on the part of Mac. No, it's quite the opposite. People who program viruses program them for maximum effect, and because nobody, I repeat, NOBODY uses Macs, why bother programming a virus for Mac?

Damn! That's hot! I'm throwing out my dell laptop when I get home after work :D

Glad you like it. Many people fail to recognise its greatness and freak out at the mere sight of it. In vain do I point out to them its Lego-like adaptability (want to upgrade it? just plug a new component in), its theft-proof design (that's a supporting wall it's nailed to) and its state-of-the-art toilet roll technology (useful for cleaning your hands if you like to eat snacks while on the computer).

There are many good points raised for why PCs are better than Macs (overall). The main reason I'll never use a mac -

The majority of Mac users, and people who work at stores trying to sell macs, are pretentious, stuck up a**holes. This doesn't apply to all mac users, but many seem to think that the mac is some sort of gift from God and that anyone who uses a PC is mentally handicapped. Personally, I think Macs are great and have their uses for certain purposes, and have a couple of advantages over PCs. I also believe PCs are superior overall and their ability to be upgraded and built by anyone is fantastic. I have no problem with anyone who uses a Mac, and would actually like to try one out myself, but, many mac users, again, only in my limited experience, seem to think the Mac has descended from the heavens and the rest of us are, well, you get the picture.

And that is why I refuse to ever use a mac.

There are many good points raised for why PCs are better than Macs (overall). The main reason I'll never use a mac -

The majority of Mac users, and people who work at stores trying to sell macs, are pretentious, stuck up a**holes. This doesn't apply to all mac users, but many seem to think that the mac is some sort of gift from God and that anyone who uses a PC is mentally handicapped. Personally, I think Macs are great and have their uses for certain purposes, and have a couple of advantages over PCs. I also believe PCs are superior overall and their ability to be upgraded and built by anyone is fantastic. I have no problem with anyone who uses a Mac, and would actually like to try one out myself, but, many mac users, again, only in my limited experience, seem to think the Mac has descended from the heavens and the rest of us are, well, you get the picture.

And that is why I refuse to ever use a mac.

Upgraded my desktop recently - by myself. New PSU (old one was stuffed), new mobo (old one died) and new CPU (Dual Core Opteron 165). It's so simple to upgrade PC these days, provided you know what you are doing.

Exactly, though, unfortunately, I've yet to build my own PC. My last one was paid for by my dad when I went to uni, and he wouldn't let me build on since he wanted to make sure it would be reliable and would have a warranty, so we bought a dell. It's a great computer, and since I didn't pay for it I don't mind. I think I'll build my next PC in a year or so, a real beasty gaming machine.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?Macs are shite, basically.

They can't do shit, because the required software doesn't exist, and even if you could theoretically make what you need, getting the info required to do it is impossible and illegal.

The human interface is shit. Macs are deliberately designed to have as limited an interface as possible. That makes a lot of normal stuff impossible, such as playing 99.999999999999999999% of all games. It does mean two keys on the keyboard sees a lot more use than their counterparts on a PC keyboard, but having to move your hands back & forth every 2 seconds while you're editing shit is aggrivating beyond words.

The OS is shit. Some of us keeps complaining every time a new WinOS comes along, because every time it happens, it keeps getting more like MacOS's. What am I talking about? Well, computers are complicated things, and while it's great to minimize the learning curve, taking userfriendlyness to the level where only complete retards can use the machines, and everything beyond playing fucking cards takes hours of plodding through warnings, security settings and what-have-yous, is INSANELY annoying and really doesn't help productivity. Using a Mac is like using a Vic20. Neither's good for doing anything at all. One because it can't, the other because the software'd rather kill you dead three times over than let you use it.

The hardware's shit. Macs are un-upgradable, so by the time you've finally figured out how to do whatever it was you set out to do, 57 millenia ago, the hardware won't be powerful enough to do it anymore, and instead of buying a gfx card for £20, you'll have to buy a whole new machine + peripherals, for the tiny little extra sum of some £3-4000.

But if you've never even seen a computer before, and you're only planning to get one because all your mates have one, a Mac isn't a bad idea... If you live in some disco-hell flat. Otherwise a Vic20 is a hell of a lot cheaper, every bit as good, and far less of an eyesore. a Texas Ti calculator's even smaller & more powerful than a Vic20, but if you need the idiot-proof front end of a Mac or Vic20 (idiot-proof as in one won't let you do anything, and the other simply can't), a 10 year old pocket calculator might be too a bit too complex for you.


No, I really don't hate Macs. I hate people who buy them and expect me to use them. It's not the machines' fault they're ugly and useless.

Exactly, though, unfortunately, I've yet to build my own PC. My last one was paid for by my dad when I went to uni, and he wouldn't let me build on since he wanted to make sure it would be reliable and would have a warranty, so we bought a dell. It's a great computer, and since I didn't pay for it I don't mind. I think I'll build my next PC in a year or so, a real beasty gaming machine.

i've built my own PC twice now, and its amazinly easy. i had no idea how to before doing the first one and had very little in the way of problems, saved myself money, and actually learned stuff while doing it :) only took a day or so as well.

i'm not going to say "if i did it, anyone can do it" because i've been using computers since i was about 3 and i was somewhat tech-literate before i started. however, it really *wasn't* that hard.


i'm not sure what my point is....

anyway, now i've moved over to laptops, which are harder to build, hehe

Macs are harder to use.

Apple would disagree with me, but they're wrong. Macs are easier to do specific things with, as long as those specific things are things Apple decided you wanted to do. But for general use, PCs are easier to use.

I miss OS/2.

Macs are shite, basically.

They can't do shit, because the required software doesn't exist, and even if you could theoretically make what you need, getting the info required to do it is impossible and illegal.

Nonsense.

The human interface is shit. Macs are deliberately designed to have as limited an interface as possible. That makes a lot of normal stuff impossible, such as playing 99.999999999999999999% of all games. It does mean two keys on the keyboard sees a lot more use than their counterparts on a PC keyboard, but having to move your hands back & forth every 2 seconds while you're editing shit is aggrivating beyond words.

I don't know what you're talking about. I can do two things with two hands just fine. Sounds like you have some sort of medical condition. :p

The OS is shit. Some of us keeps complaining every time a new WinOS comes along, because every time it happens, it keeps getting more like MacOS's. What am I talking about? Well, computers are complicated things, and while it's great to minimize the learning curve, taking userfriendlyness to the level where only complete retards can use the machines, and everything beyond playing fucking cards takes hours of plodding through warnings, security settings and what-have-yous, is INSANELY annoying and really doesn't help productivity. Using a Mac is like using a Vic20. Neither's good for doing anything at all. One because it can't, the other because the software'd rather kill you dead three times over than let you use it.

I think you're anthropomorphizing too much.

Macs are un-upgradable

Untrue.

, so by the time you've finally figured out how to do whatever it was you set out to do, 57 millenia ago,

Steep learning curve for you? Funny, people say the same of Windows. Oh well, to each his own.

1) Macs seem to be harder to upgrade.
2) You can run more operating systems on a PC, The term PC has become sysnonomous(sp?) to M$ window$ for most people.
3) Those realy annoying adds.

Nonsense. Sadly not.I don't know what you're talking about. I can do two things with two hands just fine. Sounds like you have some sort of medical condition. :pYes, but having to use two hands when the task doesn't require it on a different type of computer, is simply a needless slowdown for it's own sake.I think you're anthropomorphizing too much.I was going for humour, and it's connected to this:Steep learning curve for you? Funny, people say the same of Windows. Oh well, to each his own.The problem isn't the learning curve. On the contrary, the problem is the OS in particular, and software in general, is designed to pursuade you not to do a great many perfectly ordinary things that any semi-advanced user needs to do on a regular basis. It is purportedly done for 'ease of use', but all that's accomplished is to annoy the crap out of the user. As already mentioned, WinOS' gets more and more perverse about this too, but it's never held a candle to MacOS'. It's very, very pursuasive. So much so one's at times more inclined to simply toss the lot out of the window rather than spend 10+ mins doing what ought to take 20 secs.Untrue.Comparatively speaking, it's absolutely true.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use?

...cuz macs suck...

Sadly not.Yes, but having to use two hands when the task doesn't require it on a different type of computer, is simply a needless slowdown for it's own sake.

Again I see there is no slowdown. I use both PCs and a Mac.

The problem isn't the learning curve. On the contrary, the problem is the OS in particular, and software in general, is designed to pursuade you not to do a great many perfectly ordinary things that any semi-advanced user needs to do on a regular basis.

...like?

Comparatively speaking, it's absolutely true.

...

That's an oxymoron. If it's comparitive it's relative, and not absolute.

I am The Anti Mac (Seriously, I walked into my schools Mac Lab and all twenty or so macs crashed within ten minutes without me doing anything, and I can't own an iPod because the hard-drives always die on me, I get paid to stay away from the local mac stores, My Film teachers class-room G4 caught fire while I was editing my final project on it), so take anything I say appropriately.

Macs are quickly overtaking PCs in popularity, the ability to dual-boot windows/run windows instances from the Mac OS, Coupled with price drops and an Amazingly expensive and even more ridiculously amazingly effective ad campaign (PC vs. Mac, the iPod). are swiftly driving users into the Mac fold.

One day in the near future (10-20 years) We will be having this same conversation about why aren't PCs more popular (for pretty much the same reasons we are now) It will eventually be revealed that Wacs have just as many security flaws as PCs and it will become just as accepted as all of PCs flaws are now (noisily, but no one changes anyway) and eventually it will be believed that PCs have less security flaws simply because no one uses them anymore.


it'll be interesting to see how a company that has never had to deal w/ a real viru epidemic for their OS will respond to the first major outbreak.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

One-button mouse and they look like toys.
Also, if we had any sense, we'd at move to Linux at least. Unix even better.

Ilaer

Macs are quickly overtaking PCs in popularity, the ability to dual-boot windows/run windows instances from the Mac OS, Coupled with price drops and an Amazingly expensive and even more ridiculously amazingly effective ad campaign (PC vs. Mac, the iPod). are swiftly driving users into the Mac fold.

One day in the near future (10-20 years) We will be having this same conversation about why aren't PCs more popular

Interesting take. I don't agree, I don't think this latest iPod nonsense is much more than a fashion trend. Microsoft has shown it can adapt quicker to the market and out-do its competitors, Apple has for some time only appealed to a niche market and I don't think that will really change.

But who knows, maybe.

I had to sometimes use a Mac at school and it was incredibly slow to start with. Not to mention it was harder to use multiple internet windows, copy files as easily, the mouse had only one button with irritated me to no end, etc., etc. It was a pain in the ass and when I went to the computer lab I crossed my fingers that a PC would be open so my life could be easier.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

The ads, man.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

Dark wizards.

The ads, man.

The recent Mac ads have been pretty amusing though. Not that it makes me want to get a Mac so maybe they are failures...

The recent Mac ads have been pretty amusing though. Not that it makes me want to get a Mac so maybe they are failures...

Those new Mac commercials make me wanna take a dump in Steve Jobs' mouth.

The HURD;12425212']There are INTEL macs, which use another BIOS, there are other Macs, which use the PowerPC architecture and are thus incompatible with Windows (they can run many OpenSource OSes however)

I like your sig because it's Kumbaya for dorks, but methinks it'll get deleted or shrunk eventually.

Those new Mac commercials make me wanna take a dump in Steve Jobs' mouth.

Oh come one, doesn't this just make you want to giggle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqZ8AqmLPY). :D

Speaking as a Mac user since the old Apple II in 1981, and a Mac owner since 1997, there seems to be one hell of a lot of unnecessary emotional crap being shoveled in here about Macs.

Of course there's a software deficit. As a desinger, you don't make money skewing your development to 10% of the market. However, if you like Halo, thank Bungie, a Mac-based company swallowed up by MS. I play all the games I like to play on my G5 iMac at 2GHz and 1G RAM. Civilization 4, Halo, Railroad Tycoon and Sims series, Unreal Tournament 2k4 online (sniper servers are my favorite), WoW, and anything else I enjoy.

All the programs I need to use work very well. Music publishing (Sibelius), music creation (Garage Band, Band In A Box), Editing (Pro Tools), Web design and publishing (thanks to Adobe).

Personally, I don't understand the PC love of drivers and complicated install procedures, but I'm not going to mock them for it. I am simply not a high-end programming user, and I prefer simplicity to having to be a partial hacker to get the machine to do what I want it to do.

In short, it's about what you're used to and your preferences. Neither machine is inherently superior to the other -- they both have strenghts and weaknesses. A lot of PC bitching about Macs reminds me of petulant grade schoolers putting down things they don't understand. Thing is, I don't give a fuck about PCs. I use one at work, and it's fine, but I don't particularly care for them.

So if you're obsessed with rooting around in the guts of your PC, please go ahead. I can upgrade my Mac as much as I need to. I've onwed only two Macs since 1997. Two computers over ten years is not terribly expensive considering what obsolescence is like.

So keep moaning if you like, but I'm perfectly happy with my Mac and wouldn't give you a stool sample for a PC. But that's not because of any perceived "betterness" of Macs (and I agree, the Mac ads are too cloying and unsubtle), it's because I go with what I know and what I'm used to.

Oh come one, doesn't this just make you want to giggle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqZ8AqmLPY). :D

I feel a big one coming. If only I could find that bastard Jobs...!

:p

Personally, I don't understand the PC love of drivers and complicated install procedures, but I'm not going to mock them for it. I am simply not a high-end programming user, and I prefer simplicity to having to be a partial hacker to get the machine to do what I want it to do.


not the case with PCs, but the rest of your post is :)

Macs r teh sucketh!

Macs are quickly overtaking PCs in popularity, the ability to dual-boot windows/run windows instances from the Mac OS, Coupled with price drops and an Amazingly expensive and even more ridiculously amazingly effective ad campaign (PC vs. Mac, the iPod). are swiftly driving users into the Mac fold.

does this mean that i can buy a mac for under $1000?

This thread reminds me of some grafitti I saw on a Mac advert at a bus stop a couple of months ago. It was one of those ones with the two blokes on it, on was saying "Mac - 0 viruses" and the other was saying "PC - 2 billion (I forget the number) viruses"

Some fairly bright wag had sprayed on it " That's because anyone who knows enough about computers to write a virus buys a PC"

It made me chuckle anyway.

Here.

http://shittymacad.ytmnd.com/

http://pcownsmacsface.ytmnd.com/

And most importantly:

http://mvpc.ytmnd.com/

Jobbs probably had to sell his soul to the devil to save Apple's ass. Even with it's best efforts to reassert itself into the PC market, it's archaic refusal to untie the Mac OS from the hardware has got to be keeping it barely earning anything. It has to be making it's money in iPods. Like Nintendo in the handheld market. When there is practically no one else in the market to compete with (either through fact or anti-competitive edging out), you are going to be making assloads of cash.

You do realise that Apple have enough markup on the Mac that they've got the Mac's marked up by about 25-30% over the cost of production, as opposed to Dell who are at most 1% up, right? Apple's strategy is to deliver a beautiful integrated solution, and make a decent chunk of money on each unit. It's quite a lot like the Wii, now that I think about it.

Also, OS X is a more secure platform than Windows, even Vista. I will admit that it's smaller marketshare could have something to do with it, but the amount of credit for the first person who writes a real virus for OS X would be colossal.

Even going with 1/10th of the actual marketshare ratio between Windows and OS X we should see hundreds of viruses a year, instead we've seen practically nil. Mac OS X is more secure, but not invulnerable, nothing is.

Having said all that, for people such as myself who like to have the ability to tinker with portions of the internals of your machine, or change large sets of your machine's behaviour, nothing beats a Linux, one of the BSDs, Haiku, the HURD, Plan 9, or anything else of that type.

(Disclaimer: No research done now, basically all of the top of my head. I've got a fairly good memory though)

I had to sometimes use a Mac at school and it was incredibly slow to start with. Not to mention it was harder to use multiple internet windows, copy files as easily, the mouse had only one button with irritated me to no end, etc., etc. It was a pain in the ass and when I went to the computer lab I crossed my fingers that a PC would be open so my life could be easier.

1) Possibly underfed on RAM. That's the worst thing Apple do, IMO.

2) Safari has tabs. Use those instead of multiple windows, quicker and easier.

3) Drag and drop too hard for you? One or two clicks will get you into most common folders, a few more and you can get anywhere

4) One, Apple do now sell Macs with a two button mouse, two, the UI is generally designed to work well with only one button. I tend not to notice the missing two.

I realize I may seem a little snide on some of these, nothing personal. I should make it clear that I use Linux and BSD mostly, but sometimes OS X or WinXP.

And to whoever said that having Microsoft set document standards was a good thing, I slap thee with a trout. Having the standard format be effectively controlled by a single company is never a good thing, for any sense of the word good. For documents, open formats are a must. What do you do when the company stops selling the software, or releases a new version that can't be downgraded and prevents you reading your old documents? Open formats are the only way to go for any sort of permanency. [/rant]

2) Safari has tabs. Use those instead of multiple windows, quicker and easier.
Is there a keyboard shortcut for switching between those tabs, because there is for switching between windows, and that makes the windows faster.

Also, in Windows switching between any two things I have open involves either using that keyboard shortcut or going to the taskbar. The tabs are somewhere else entirely, thus introducing inefficiency.

UIs should be consistent. Mac UIs aren't.

Oh, and I don't like icons. I like menus.

It's those damned commericals.


http://www.gadgetspage.com/wp-content/MacCommercial.jpg

"I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Mac. I'm here to show PCs as old fashioned, even 'square.' I'm like some hip, young, white urbanite, while the PC is like a middle-aged, balding man. We would have made him Mexican and lazy, but that didn't pass focus groups."
"What is your problem? I'm a good product, in fact if the free fucking market is any judge, I'm near 9x better than you."
"I come with a camera built in!"
"Yea, well I can actually run the software most of America wants to use, and I can do it while right-clicking."
"..."

And to whoever said that having Microsoft set document standards was a good thing, I slap thee with a trout. Having the standard format be effectively controlled by a single company is never a good thing, for any sense of the word good. For documents, open formats are a must. What do you do when the company stops selling the software, or releases a new version that can't be downgraded and prevents you reading your old documents? Open formats are the only way to go for any sort of permanency. [/rant]

it was me. and i meant setting a minimum standard is a must. open formats are obviously better, but i strongly feel the computing world would be a lot more fragmented than it is today - to its detriment - without a unifying global standard of both quality of software and transferable file formats.

just look at what the computing world was like before Windows came along, with each model of computer running its own proprietary bespoke OS and using its own file formats, etc. thanks to the internet, largely, we are at a stage in the digital world whereby open formats are truly viable, but the last 10+ years have required a unifying standard that has been MS, imho.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

PCs are easier to use and there are more applications released for PCs.

I used Macs back in elemtary school, and a PC at home, and I still don't like Macs.
Using Macs in elementary school is one possible source of my unexplained bias against them.

Personally, I don't understand the PC love of drivers and complicated install procedures, but I'm not going to mock them for it. I am simply not a high-end programming user, and I prefer simplicity to having to be a partial hacker to get the machine to do what I want it to do.

You're going to have to elaborate on that, I haven't seen a complicated installer except for DOS. Even the new windows operating system, Vista, is pretty much an automatic install. I remember in 98 and 2000 you could choose what features to install. Vista just puts everything on, eating up 13GB of your hard disk in the process.

Personally, I don't understand the PC love of drivers and complicated install procedures, but I'm not going to mock them for it. I am simply not a high-end programming user, and I prefer simplicity to having to be a partial hacker to get the machine to do what I want it to do.
I don't understand how people can be content to use appliances without understanding what they're doing. You're probably one of those people who doesn't know how his microwave works.

You're going to have to elaborate on that, I haven't seen a complicated installer except for DOS. Even the new windows operating system, Vista, is pretty much an automatic install. I remember in 98 and 2000 you could choose what features to install. Vista just puts everything on, eating up 13GB of your hard disk in the process.
Upgrading video drivers isn't always the most straightforward process, especially if you have to uninstall the old one (thus reverting to VGA) in order to do it.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?
Its because it is easier to find games for PCs, or at least use to be I've heard that its getting easier to find games for Macs.

Frankly, Mac's aren't any more secure than PCs, even with the old BS about "oh, there are more viruses for PCs!"

There are more viruses for PCs because people who make viruses do so to piss off the most number of people.

Why spend your time writing a virus for a system that only 10% of the population uses?

Macs, in general, are not more secure than PCs (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Apple_more_secure_than_Windows_NT_/0,130061744,339271555,00.htm)

OSX not secure? Did you know that the US Army uses OSX and XServes?

http://www.apple.com/itpro/profiles/army/

"I wanted high-speed systems that could handle any application we needed, keep the site available 24 hours a day, not be vulnerable to every passing virus, and fend off hackers without my staff having to spend all their time applying security patches .
— Mark H. Wiggins, Lt. Col., U.S. Army, Ret. Former director, www.army.mil"

Cant tweak OSX? What a laugh. It's Unix BSD. Just open up the terminal.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

The newest Mac's can run OSX, XP and any Linux flavor at the same time.

Keep on hating, and regurgitating false information. Ignorance is a warm blanket.

i stand by MS though as somebody needs to set a standard of quality and benchmark useability... not to mention tie in global filetypes to a common standard. i can't imagine how fragmented the world of computing would be without Microsoft to be frank.
Pretty, good. Things were quite standardized before MS came around. MS just redid everything, and then some, so that they could own every standard.

Is there a keyboard shortcut for switching between those tabs, because there is for switching between windows, and that makes the windows faster.

Also, in Windows switching between any two things I have open involves either using that keyboard shortcut or going to the taskbar. The tabs are somewhere else entirely, thus introducing inefficiency.
But then you overload your taskbar with useless junk, and waste memory (and Windows does not need any help doing that).

Also, does Windows allow you to tab any two windows together? Can you have a window with Firefox on one tab, and a music player in another, and a P2P program in another? How about multiple desktops (which Apple has recently ripped off)? The lastest and 'greatest' Windows doesn't even have that. You have to have all your shit going on one desktop, cluttering your taskbar, and miss-matching your tasks.

Can you assign shortcuts to the corners/edges of your screen? You would not believe how handy those are until you have used them. It is a million times faster to fire your mouse into the appropriete corner, than to hit a keyboard combo.

Unless, you are working in a terminal emulator, which you should be if you are worried about nanosecond efficiency. Nothing is faster than an experienced person working in a good shell. Unfortunately MS only gives you command prompt. Hell, even Macs have a proper bash fucking terminal.

? How about multiple desktops (which Apple has recently ripped off)? The lastest and 'greatest' Windows doesn't even have that. You have to have all your shit going on one desktop, cluttering your taskbar, and miss-matching your tasks.

The free Microsoft Powertoys for XP remedy that somewhat. Tasks still clutter up the taskbar, but at least not the desktop. And the alt+tab replacement with preview also helps.

The free Microsoft Powertoys for XP remedy that somewhat. Tasks still clutter up the taskbar, but at least not the desktop. And the alt+tab replacement with preview also helps.
I nearly forgot about the power toys. By the time I first found out about them, XP was too bloated to run well anymore, so really the calculator worked correctly. Too bad I did not think about them back when this computer had Windows on it...

it was me. and i meant setting a minimum standard is a must. open formats are obviously better, but i strongly feel the computing world would be a lot more fragmented than it is today - to its detriment - without a unifying global standard of both quality of software and transferable file formats.

just look at what the computing world was like before Windows came along, with each model of computer running its own proprietary bespoke OS and using its own file formats, etc. thanks to the internet, largely, we are at a stage in the digital world whereby open formats are truly viable, but the last 10+ years have required a unifying standard that has been MS, imho.

Sure, and tell me one of those operating systems which couldn't handle plain ASCII text.

TeX provides a standard, non-breaking, document format if you want formatting.

Pretty much any spreadsheet program can read CSV.

JPG, GIF, PNG, can be handled by every OS with a GUI that I know of.

Microsoft own none of these, they can't control any of these, most of them have been around for decades, and your data becomes yours, not anybody else's.

Sure, and tell me one of those operating systems which couldn't handle plain ASCII text.

TeX provides a standard, non-breaking, document format if you want formatting.

Pretty much any spreadsheet program can read CSV.

JPG, GIF, PNG, can be handled by every OS with a GUI that I know of.

Microsoft own none of these, they can't control any of these, most of them have been around for decades, and your data becomes yours, not anybody else's.

true, but i'd wager that without Windows (and IE) support of these platforms many of them may not have made it to be the file format standards they are today, with the exception of TeX and CSV i guess.

its highly speculative of course

Well, having worked with both, here are a few reasons.

Macs are more expensive. You can pick up a very capable PC for under $700 now, whereas an equivalent Mac would probably cost over $1K.

Macs are very very proprietary. You pretty much have to deal with Apple for most upgrades, and they are almost always more expensive to do.

Software support. There are still a LOT of software packages which do not have a Mac version. This is a problem for most companies that rely on certain packages for their day to day operations.

The Operating system. Basically OSX is a ported version of the Linux operating system with a nice shell added to it. Kind of like the old arrangement with Windows 3.1 running over DOS. and do not be misled. There ARE viri and exploits for the Mac, they just arent as numerous, or as widely publicized due to the relatively small user base.

Honestly, I have managed places using both Mac and POC, and I initially preferred the Mac, but after the Mac SE30, PCs started becoming actually useful for something when windows became popular. At that point I had to revise my opinion. In the old days, before the Mac and PC the big question was what's better AMiga or Atari ST. Same deal. I preferrred the ST btw.

There will always be uber-loyal fanatical users who would swear by their systems even if they caught fire and burned down their houses. Don't laugh, I almost had a Mac classic do that once. The thing is. Look at what you do. I do a lot of 3D modeling work, and I use a PC because the same software for the Mac is about twice as expensive and there are no differences.

Some people also use the Mac because it is totally (well mostly) idiot proof. The OS is so simple a 5 year old can run it. I prefer more control over my system, and cutesy menu features and icons do not impress me. My take is that if someone wants a computer, they should at least get up off of their mental butt and learn somethign about it.

I have worked in the tech support field for many years, dealing with ISP issues. I was usually the one they sent the Mac calls since I knew more about them than any of the other CSRs. Now on the PC side, I have gotten some oddball and dumb questions, but some (not all) of the Mac ones were so bad I had to put the customer on hold long enough to come to grips with the fact that someone just asked me the question I was asked. In cases like those, the simplicity of the Mac usually worked against us. You didn't have control over what you needed to work with to fix the problem. And the OS's dumbing down of the users didn't help either.

I consider the Mac to be a boutique item at this point. People buy it because it is different no matter what they claim. I see no justification in spending 2-3 times as much for the same functionality. Also I think the new Macs just look way too weird. If I want a piece of art, I will buy a statue or something.


Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

Can you assign shortcuts to the corners/edges of your screen? You would not believe how handy those are until you have used them. It is a million times faster to fire your mouse into the appropriete corner, than to hit a keyboard combo.
How many of those will Mac let me do at a time? There are hundreds of 2-3 keystroke combinations I can assign to specific functions, and they keys are always in exactly the same place so I don't need to do something different based on where my cursor happens to be or what's printed on the screen right now.

Preferential menus. Scrolling icons. Atuo-sorting lists. All of these introduce inefficiency.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

The simple answer is "because they are more popular than Macs." Since there are more PCs then Macs among consumers, more software is made for PCs than Macs. Anyone whose ever had a Mac can tell you how much of a bitch it can be to find programs.

You're going to have to elaborate on that, I haven't seen a complicated installer except for DOS. Even the new windows operating system, Vista, is pretty much an automatic install. I remember in 98 and 2000 you could choose what features to install. Vista just puts everything on, eating up 13GB of your hard disk in the process.

Recent Windows OSs may have fixed this, but I recall my friends worrying about driver software for each of their peripherals and cards and whatnot, and that struck me as needlessly complicated. That's all. Like I said, I'm not a high-end user. I install a program by inserting a CD- or DVD-ROM and clicking "install". Is it that way with Windows now? Cool, if so.

I don't understand how people can be content to use appliances without understanding what they're doing. You're probably one of those people who doesn't know how his microwave works.

Look man, in my post I quite clearly stated that I wasn't about to engage in mockery or trading insults with PC users. I have no reason to because I like my Mac. Just becuase I don't have the time to mess with hundreds of subfolders and forever interchanging various PC components doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Frankly, your attitude is one of the reasons Mac sells so well. You don't need to ask some unnecessarily belligerent mental adolescent to fix or set up your PC for you.

I'm sorry you have a predilection to assume those around you are ignorant merely because they don't have the time or inclination to constantly upgrade their PCs every time a new version of DirectX comes out. Relax.

There are still a lot of misconceptions regarding PCs. Yes, in the past, you needed to deal with endless driver disks, most of which caused conflicts with some other piece of hardware. Now however, 90% of all the drivers you will need are included in WinXP.with Plug and play, all you really need to do is add in the new hardware. Also setting up hardware has also gotten easier. Most peripherals are USB now or Firewire. Plug em in and insert the disk when asked for it. For instance my nice Dlink Wireless Adapter. lug it in, insert the CD, wait 20 seconds, choose the model from the popup window, click finish and your done and online. No hassles. Windows even set up it's networking automatically.

You mention hundreds of pripherals. Well for a PC user, that is a good thing. PCs are extremely flexible. Say you only need a system for business number crunching. All you need is a fast CPU and a lot of RAM. You can usually get by with either an inexpensive video card, or the built in video that comes with most modern motherboards. If you we're a gamer, you would want a much higher end video card and sound card so you could purchase one of the many great cards out there. Installation is not that hard and only really requires the skill to operate a screwdriver and read a 1 paragraph instruction booklet. I used to have a website up which had a detailed step by step tutorial on how to build your own PC. Even a mentally defficient orangutan could do it. I can toss one together in about 30 minutes from parts. A first time builder, probably an hour. All you need to do after assembly is insert your windows CD, follow a few instructions on the first few screens then let it finish setting itself up.

A properly built PC is flexible, reliable, and offers a much larger selection of software and hardware. And networking is really really easy now. There is a simple wizard to run, and all it really needs from you is the name of the domain or workgroup you wish to hook it up to, and whether or not you will be sharing files and folders over the network.

I am not saying Macs aren't decent PCs, but for cost, software support, flexibility and reliability, they simply cannot compete with a well built PC.

As for the OS. I haven't yet had a chance to mess around with Vista and I probably will pass on it, but XP is great. You can have as many or as few folders as you want. You decide. Programs install in their own subfolders just to keep them seperated. Navigating them is easy too. One cool thing I like is if you are in a folder window, there is an address bar at the top. ype a web address there and it takes you there.The whole OS uses the web browser for folder views making it unbelievably flexible and easy to customize folders. I have one friend who basically has all of his folders set up as web pages. It's very cool. And if someone is coming from the mac, there are a few add ons which will make the PC operate almost identically to the Mac as far as the OS goes. And don't forget, Mac OSX is Linux (more like BSD), which was originally a PC OS. As a result, you could technically run an almost identical OS on the PC and bypass windows altogether. Now that the Mac is using PC CPUs, I don't see it taking long before you have an OSX version for normal PCs. Apple would probably make a fortune if they put one out. That would kind of be a best of both worlds scenario.

Pardon Typos.


Recent Windows OSs may have fixed this, but I recall my friends worrying about driver software for each of their peripherals and cards and whatnot, and that struck me as needlessly complicated. That's all. Like I said, I'm not a high-end user. I install a program by inserting a CD- or DVD-ROM and clicking "install". Is it that way with Windows now? Cool, if so.



Look man, in my post I quite clearly stated that I wasn't about to engage in mockery or trading insults with PC users. I have no reason to because I like my Mac. Just becuase I don't have the time to mess with hundreds of subfolders and forever interchanging various PC components doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Frankly, your attitude is one of the reasons Mac sells so well. You don't need to ask some unnecessarily belligerent mental adolescent to fix or set up your PC for you.

I'm sorry you have a predilection to assume those around you are ignorant merely because they don't have the time or inclination to constantly upgrade their PCs every time a new version of DirectX comes out. Relax.

I install a program by inserting a CD- or DVD-ROM and clicking "install". Is it that way with Windows now? Cool, if so.
What if I don't want to install it? Why can't the computer trust me to make intelligent decisions on my own?
Look man, in my post I quite clearly stated that I wasn't about to engage in mockery or trading insults with PC users. I have no reason to because I like my Mac. Just becuase I don't have the time to mess with hundreds of subfolders and forever interchanging various PC components doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Frankly, your attitude is one of the reasons Mac sells so well. You don't need to ask some unnecessarily belligerent mental adolescent to fix or set up your PC for you.
Nice inferred derision, there.

How many of those will Mac let me do at a time? There are hundreds of 2-3 keystroke combinations I can assign to specific functions, and they keys are always in exactly the same place so I don't need to do something different based on where my cursor happens to be or what's printed on the screen right now.

Preferential menus. Scrolling icons. Atuo-sorting lists. All of these introduce inefficiency.
I have no idea how Macs do keyboard shortcuts. I haven't touched the things in about a year now. Considering their, legacy with one button mice, they probably have allot.

I do not follow how auto-sorting lists are less efficient. I find auto-sort by name makes finding files much faster. Of course sort by date has its moments. But unsorted? That is just messy and uncivilized. How do you deal with large directories? Like sure, I can see how you can remember were all 200 of your music files are in a directory, but what about something bigger, with say 1500 files, how do you keep track of that.?

BTW, WTF is a sorting icon, and preferential menu?

What if I don't want to install it? Why can't the computer trust me to make intelligent decisions on my own?Then do not click install, how hard is that?

Then do not click install, how hard is that?
Can I configure a Mac not to ask the question? Disabling AutoRun in Windows is trivial.

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

The main reason is that Apple did not originally open up the internal architecture for its systems.

IBM did, and this resulted in a slew of clones entering the market, making individual systems much cheaper than they otherwise would have been. Since, as you pointed out, the essential capabilities were more or less equivalent, the cheaper choice won out. This meant that more software was released for the platform, meaning still more systems being manufactured, meaning even more software being written...ad infinitum

Can I configure a Mac not to ask the question? Disabling AutoRun in Windows is trivial.
A better question would be "Does Mac have autorun in the first place?"

To which the answer is "Fortunately not."

Price is an issue

Also back in the day IBM making open hardware standards so that other companies could get their hands in the game and make some kick ass hardware at a more reasonable price

Price is an issue

Also back in the day IBM making open hardware standards so that other companies could get their hands in the game and make some kick ass hardware at a more reasonable price
Damn Lenovo buying their consumer brand.*shakes fist menacingly in the general direction of Lenovo headquarters*


*two men in black suits escort Posi into a car with tinted windows*

Price is an issue

Also back in the day IBM making open hardware standards so that other companies could get their hands in the game and make some kick ass hardware at a more reasonable price

The two are actually connected, as I explained above.

A better question would be "Does Mac have autorun in the first place?"

To which the answer is "Fortunately not."
Then how does it know to ask me if I want to install the software? Or what to install?

Then how does it know to ask me if I want to install the software? Or what to install?
As I said before, you open up the disk with Finder, and you double click the install button. Same as you would on Windows had it not had that security abomination known as Auto-Play.

Okay first off, it is very easy to turn off auto play. The real question would be why in the heck would you want to. The OS senses what kind of CD, DVD, or blank media it is, if music it will ask if you wish to play the disk. If software it will pop up an installer IF the disk has an autorun file on it. If it is a disk which has already been installed, it will open the program it is associated with. If you insert blank media it will ask you which application you wish to open (nero burning rom etc...) And each and every one of these choices can be changed or turned off. So if your happy having to go through extra steps with the finder, well I'm happy for you. And I don't know who you have been talking to, but autoplay doesn't make the os any more or less secure. A little misinformation goes a long way doesn't it?

As I said before, you open up the disk with Finder, and you double click the install button. Same as you would on Windows had it not had that security abomination known as Auto-Play.

Okay first off, it is very easy to turn off auto play. The real question would be why in the heck would you want to. The OS senses what kind of CD, DVD, or blank media it is, if music it will ask if you wish to play the disk. If software it will pop up an installer IF the disk has an autorun file on it. If it is a disk which has already been installed, it will open the program it is associated with. If you insert blank media it will ask you which application you wish to open (nero burning rom etc...) And each and every one of these choices can be changed or turned off. So if your happy having to go through extra steps with the finder, well I'm happy for you. And I don't know who you have been talking to, but autoplay doesn't make the os any more or less secure. A little misinformation goes a long way doesn't it?
Yes it does. It allows a simple way of getting a computer to do something that you may not want it to do. Remember the Sony root-kit? It used auto-play to accomplish its nastiness. Did anybody want to run the root-kit? No. Did it run regardless? Yes. Would this breach of security work without autoplay? No.

Autoplay is a security threat, pure and simple.

Okay first off, it is very easy to turn off auto play. The real question would be why in the heck would you want to. The OS senses what kind of CD, DVD, or blank media it is, if music it will ask if you wish to play the disk. If software it will pop up an installer IF the disk has an autorun file on it. If it is a disk which has already been installed, it will open the program it is associated with. If you insert blank media it will ask you which application you wish to open (nero burning rom etc...) And each and every one of these choices can be changed or turned off. So if your happy having to go through extra steps with the finder, well I'm happy for you. And I don't know who you have been talking to, but autoplay doesn't make the os any more or less secure. A little misinformation goes a long way doesn't it?
Over a million computers infected with xpc because of autoplay would beg to differ with your assessment of autoplays security

http://en.hakin9.org/?module=products&moduleAction=articleInfo&value=101

Yes it does. It allows a simple way of getting a computer to do something that you may not want it to do. Remember the Sony root-kit? It used auto-play to accomplish its nastiness. Did anybody want to run the root-kit? No. Did it run regardless? Yes. Would this breach of security work without autoplay? No.

Autoplay is a security threat, pure and simple.

Hehehe we both picked the same example

Yes I know about the root kit in question. You will not I didn't say that autoplay doesn't make the system insecure. I said it makes it no more or less secure. There are a few hundred other ways I can think of off hand to get into the system. Also Autoplay doesn't allow apps to run as admin unless you are logging in with an admin account, which is just dumb to begin with. Also unless someone put in a contaminated CD (such as sony DRM) there will be no problems. The main security holes in XP are in the browser which is integral with the OS.Oh yeh. If autoplay was disabled, it would still have activated when someone went to play the CD Manually. Not having autoplay would not have stopped that one.

Yes it does. It allows a simple way of getting a computer to do something that you may not want it to do. Remember the Sony root-kit? It used auto-play to accomplish its nastiness. Did anybody want to run the root-kit? No. Did it run regardless? Yes. Would this breach of security work without autoplay? No.

Autoplay is a security threat, pure and simple.

Yes I know about the root kit in question. You will not I didn't say that autoplay doesn't make the system insecure. I said it makes it no more or less secure. There are a few hundred other ways I can think of off hand to get into the system. Also Autoplay doesn't allow apps to run as admin unless you are logging in with an admin account, which is just dumb to begin with. Also unless someone put in a contaminated CD (such as sony DRM) there will be no problems. The main security holes in XP are in the browser which is integral with the OS.Oh yeh. If autoplay was disabled, it would still have activated when someone went to play the CD Manually. Not having autoplay would not have stopped that one.
Using a non-admin account on Windows is just plain dumb too. It is so restrictive that you cannot do anything. On Vista, they are worthwhile, but on XP, you might as well keep the computer turned off.

If it is as simple as "don't put in a contaminated CD", why isn't it as simple as "don't look at a contaminated webpage" or "don't open contaminate emails" or "don't download contaminated porn"? The people responsible put a hell of allot of effort into making it hard to tell that something funky is going on.

So we show you an example of how a very prominent root kit took advantage of a security hole and you claim it makes it no more or less secure?

Without auto play that root kit would have not have had the impact it did, very clearly making the system LESS secure then if it had no auto play

And you know a few hundred other ways huh? alright I am deffinatly up for hearing details, I do cleanup like this day in and day out you could make my job a lot easier

I imagine they were planning on playing the CD anyways, and the auto play just made it happen that much faster.

*shrug* Oh well.

Yes I know about the root kit in question. You will not I didn't say that autoplay doesn't make the system insecure. I said it makes it no more or less secure. There are a few hundred other ways I can think of off hand to get into the system. Also Autoplay doesn't allow apps to run as admin unless you are logging in with an admin account, which is just dumb to begin with. Also unless someone put in a contaminated CD (such as sony DRM) there will be no problems. The main security holes in XP are in the browser which is integral with the OS.Oh yeh. If autoplay was disabled, it would still have activated when someone went to play the CD Manually. Not having autoplay would not have stopped that one.

So we show you an example of how a very prominent root kit took advantage of a security hole and you claim it makes it no more or less secure?

Without auto play that root kit would have not have had the impact it did, very clearly making the system LESS secure then if it had no auto play

And you know a few hundred other ways huh? alright I am deffinatly up for hearing details, I do cleanup like this day in and day out you could make my job a lot easier

I imagine they were planning on playing the CD anyways, and the auto play just made it happen that much faster.

*shrug* Oh well.

The cd's played directly from a media player would not have had the same effect

Why is it that PCs have such an advantage over Macs in terms and sales and use? Considering the fact Macs have less security holes like viruses and can do basically anything a PC can. Is it because PC are easier to navigate, its just "cool" to have a PC? What is it?

The security holes in PC's are due to their popularity. The reason that there are so few viruses that affect Macs is because when people sit down to figure out how to write destructive code and decide how to most destructively implement their plot, what are they going to apply it to? The PC that everyone has, or the Mac that a handful of artists and home-movie making housewives own?

If more people owned them, more people would take the time to attack them. It's a bit like the reverse of that old joke about the passe nightclub. "No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

Like when Firefox first came out, there was very little that could go wrong with it. Now that's it's become more popular it's almost as vulnerable as Explorer.