# Why don't PC users buy Macintosh?



## MacLuv (Dec 12, 2002)

I need you help. Whatever you know, think, hear, or feel about why PC users don't buy Apple products, please post your comments on this thread. It could be anything. Duplicate opinions are welcome.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Dusky (Dec 12, 2002)

simple...... "macs suck".  LOL  That's all the PC users can say about.  Immature freaks, of course...

Oh... I meant to call "immature freaks" only those who make the statement "macs suck" and expect that statement to win them the argument.  Had to make that clarification...


----------



## edX (Dec 12, 2002)

like in duplicate to all the reasons given in countless other threads around this site? 

you mean like cost, games, ignorance, poor point of sales availabilty, they want some BIG MHZ to overcompensate with, can't figure out a simpler GUI, and better warez selection on pc's? you mean like those?


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 12, 2002)

Here some reasons i have heard and that are common outside usa:

-"Macs are for stupid people that can0t use computers" 

-i have heard this less since OS X was relesased


-"You can't find any software / any illegal software for Macs"

-hey: all major graphic apps such as photoshop and freehand ARE for macs!! besides - there are over 6000 apps that are for OS X or work there. i have found anything i ever imagined about and even more for macs. if you hear this excuse, show them versiontracker
-but true for viruses: for most viruses you can't find the mac equivalent..


-"the tech support.." 

-Hey, if i have a prob with an app i use, i send an email to programmer! normally i get an answer how to solve it within minutes, hours or by the next day. This NEVER happened when using windows


-"99% use windows"

-not true. lets say macs are 1-5% depending where you are. most graphics are done in macs. web design etc are better in macs. and for more 'casual users' there are always more and more who go to linux .. and then maybe to mac


-"pcs are cheaper"

-true. but calcolate you use the computer for the next 3-4 years? do you want a cheap or a stable computer? do you want a huge GHz that you notice on your electirity bills or something that uses better its sources? etc etc etc. 

i'll continue tomorrow if i remember some other rants-


----------



## cellfish (Dec 12, 2002)

Well as a user of a very fast PC and an iBook, I think I can easily answer this:

- Macs are slow (no denying that, don't try)
- All hardware upgrades are either too expensive or impossible on the Mac
- No games selection
- No variety in the valuable software available
- No drivers for even the most popular of hardware
- No sure-fire DivX playback


----------



## Sogni (Dec 13, 2002)

In my case, it was misguided hatred (towards the Mac II? The one with the tiny b/w monitor) after having used a "better" PC (color with "HUGE" monitor)...

But aside from that, now - mostly cuz they thing higher MHZ speed will make them more productive ("Macs are slow"), and Windows is all they know (talk about an abusive relationship! "Yeah he abuses me and we swear at eachother all the time, but I love Bill Gates" ).


----------



## Sogni (Dec 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Well as a user of a very fast PC and an iBook, I think I can easily answer this:
> 
> - Macs are slow (no denying that, don't try)
> ...



I must disagree with all your points - as a owner of 5 PCs - 3 of which are Windows, and a tech with 2 towers and a laptop - all Windows PCs belonging to clients that I'm currently fixing, and one Mac (Dual G4 Tower)... but you said you didn't want to hear it so...


----------



## Gnomo (Dec 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tormente _
> *talk about an abusive relationship! "Yeah he abuses me and we swear at eachother all the time, but I love Bill Gates" ). *


And to think that PC people claim that Mac users are the masochists.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,56575,00.html


----------



## Decado (Dec 13, 2002)

The main reason my friends buy PCs is that they can get applications and games for free (illegal).  I'm surprised that people develop software for the PC since the pirating is so widely spread. Mac users are more honest  (and dont want the game developers to stop making games for mac).


----------



## Sogni (Dec 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *The main reason my friends buy PCs is that they can get applications and games for free (illegal).  I'm surprised that people develop software for the PC since the pirating is so widely spread. Mac users are more honest  (and dont want the game developers to stop making games for mac). *



Main reason someone I know uses Windows Servers... but he didn't get it illigally, Microsoft actually GAVE him the software (NT4, SQL, and now 2000 Server). 

Like one can't just download Linux for free.  :shaking head: 

Not to mention the warez.


----------



## cellfish (Dec 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tormente _
> *I must disagree with all your points - as a owner of 5 PCs - 3 of which are Windows, and a tech with 2 towers and a laptop - all Windows PCs belonging to clients that I'm currently fixing, and one Mac (Dual G4 Tower)... but you said you didn't want to hear it so...  *



You're disagreeing with the fact that PC's are faster, have more games, have a better variety of software and have a sure-fire way of handling DivX and yet you're not offering anything to combat my statement. The fact of the matter is that I'm right. PC's ARE faster. This whole 'Macs are more productive' argument holds no water whatsoever because it's not true. 

Put Photoshop 7 on a PC at 1pm and put the same program on a Mac at 1pm. By 5pm, chances are the PC guy will have done everything if they both have the exact same tasks to fill. It's not like the PC user will lose his brain during his use of the PC and that same brain won't be lost if he goes on the Mac. The only thing that could stop him from doing his work is if Windows crashes and to be completely honest, since Win 95, I've never had Windows crash on me while I was using Photoshop.


----------



## MacLuv (Dec 13, 2002)

*off topic*

Hey guys, I really love you all, but let's not make this into a mac vs. pc war, dig?

Just need to know opinions on why PC users *don't* buy Macs, not why they *should/n't* buy them...

Keep them opinions rollin' in please... it's really helping things along...

*smootch*


----------



## Jason (Dec 13, 2002)

hey you started it macluv, reap what you sow  (is that how it goes? lol)

anyways, pc hardware, is cheaper and faster, people are more accustomed to pcs, and thats it bassicaly, not many people want to make huge changes in their computing experiences.


----------



## lmitch6 (Dec 13, 2002)

Think about it this way. Where is the average potential new computer owner going to get advice from? The same place they would for anything else they buy - by asking someone "who knows". That person is often some IT guru, hardcore gamer, or hardware geek, that may not have the best interest of the potential new user in heart. I have an IT background but am an average user at home. All my mother wants to do is check her e-mail, maybe a half dozen websites, and get pics of family members. Her 350 mhz Indigo iMac suits her just fine. My father had the same need, didn't consult me on it, as I was out of town at the time, and ended up with a souped up laptop 1+ ghz laptop, XP, MS office bloatware et al. He spent a TON more money too. In the end, it's all about user experience. My mom loves the iMac much more than her old wintel box, my dad pretty much spends most of his time swearing at his laptop.


----------



## xaqintosh (Dec 13, 2002)

I think one reason is simply because they are uneducated as to why they should get a mac


----------



## Spifmeister (Dec 16, 2002)

Well it is simple, my friends can build an x86, were as they cannot build a PowerPC.
Also games cost more than the Windows counter part.  I had to pay $74 CDN for a mac version of a game compared to $59 CDN for the windows version. 
For $2599 CDN the second best iBook, I can get a x86 laptop with a ATI RADEON 9000.
Well the Mhz may not matter, but graphic cards can, and do for games.  
My friends  can get there work done on any OS, even Linux.  So the only thing they need is good games for cheap


----------



## cellfish (Dec 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Spifmeister _
> *Well it is simple, my friends can build an x86, were as they cannot build a PowerPC.
> Also games cost more than the Windows counter part.  I had to pay $74 CDN for a mac version of a game compared to $59 CDN for the windows version.
> For $2599 CDN the second best iBook, I can get a x86 laptop with a ATI RADEON 9000.
> ...



Very well said. Even now, after having bought my iBook, I look at laptops from Dell and Compaq and realize I could have gotten a DVD drive, a better video card, a larger hard drive and frankly a faster system for less. On the other hand, I wouldn't have the privilege of using OS X (which I like since it actually works properly), I would have a furnace of a machine that could burn my penis (look onto Slashdot for news of a PC user getting burned), with an extremely loud fan that would annoy the hell out of me.

I like my iBook, albeit admitting that it is slow compared to its PC counterparts because it makes no noise (which was my biggest complaint with my PC), because it actually sleeps when I ask it to, and because iTunes just kicks royal ass.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 16, 2002)

Why people don't buy Macs?
I can tell you why my last Computer has been a PC and not a Mac:
Simply because of the money.
I really couldn't see why I should buy a Mac right now when they are so overpriced.

I hope in 1 or two years they will be more affordable again.
I don't mind to pay a little more, but as things are now it is really ridicolous.


----------



## fryke (Dec 16, 2002)

An important reason is the 'lock feeling' they think they'll get when choosing Macintosh. They're spending a lot of money if they buy a new computer, whether they're buying a Mac or a PC, but they _do_ get the feeling that buying a Mac kind of locks them out of the 'real' world. Of course, one could use the same argument pro Macintosh: Less viruses, less hassle etc. And of course it's simply not true, as you can still buy a PC the next time and can still view/edit all kinds of documents a PC user sends you. (Okay, the attached vbs-viruses won't work easily, but you can use Virtual PC to try out the viruses.)


----------



## fryke (Dec 16, 2002)

Oh, and Tigger: The iBook is right now here in Switzerland the cheapest notebook you can buy, period. You may find old models of no-name brands that are about the same price, but basically: Apple is the cheapest notebook maker here in Switzerland.


----------



## brianleahy (Dec 16, 2002)

Because then they wouldn't be PC users, now would they?


----------



## Gnomo (Dec 16, 2002)

I get asked for computer advice all the time.  Having recently been converted, I now make sure that the first model of computer I suggest (when asked about buying a new computer) is a Mac.  Typically I get all sorts of answers from people about why they don't want a mac.

1) $$ - to expensive.  The could buy a pc desktop for about $400
2) Afraid that they won't be able to do work (ie Use M$ Office) on a Mac.
3) No Games
4) Can't upgrade (meaning processor & motherboard w/o buying an entire new computer)
5) Can't build your own
6) No floppy drive
7) Single Button Mouse
8) No software for Agriculture (all those poor farmers are stuck on Windoze...any software people out there want to liberate them?)

Most of these reasons are fairly easy for me to combat.  And for the most part when I actually show them OSX, they consider getting a mac and about 35% actually do (on a side note the remaining 65% haven't, at the time I'm writing this, purchased a computer yet).


----------



## Tigger (Dec 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Oh, and Tigger: The iBook is right now here in Switzerland the cheapest notebook you can buy, period. You may find old models of no-name brands that are about the same price, but basically: Apple is the cheapest notebook maker here in Switzerland. *


I wouldn't say it is the cheapest here in Gemany, but if I wanted a notebook, I would have taken a iBook. They are simply the best. 
But the Powermacs are too expensive. Period.

For switching back and forth Mac and PC, you are not quite right:
If you use expensive software like Photoshop, Quark and all that stuff it can get really expensive...


----------



## brianleahy (Dec 16, 2002)

Agriculture!?  Hmm.   

In all seriousness, what are some popular agriculture software packages?


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 16, 2002)

The reason windows users boast so much is because they do not realize pc means personal computer. Which is what our mac is right?
However, there new names should be 
WU'S which is short for wintel users.

 The truth is you can upgrade a Power Mac.
Most of these WU's do not address this at all which is why they do comparisons with say an iMac that is an all-in-one computer.

Should apple support divx? a non standard formart.

The productive situation does hold water.
film, cartoons, news networks, print, design, commercials, unix and photography 
are still fields where the macintosh is needed.
Which is what makes them successful.

Microsoft wouldn't have succeded if it hadn't of exploited the Mac OS
Most of the reason WU's hate the mac is because it is the past coming to bite them in the a$$.

Soon to be WU's want a computer that is new and cheap.
Experienced WU's buy the more pricey systems
and than tell the new WU's to keep buying cheap cause those mac's are wayyyyy too expensive.
So the cycle goes on and every three years those new WU's have to upgrade to a different computer. While the experienced WU's are gouging out eyes to get the latest.

Meanwhile your sitting outside being mocked by that same WU who just bought a new $3,500 machine telling you your $999 ibook is too expensive. 

right.

good day gentlemen


----------



## sirfulcrum (Dec 19, 2002)

I'm primarily a PC user, but I own a Pismo PowerBook running Jaguar. And I really do love my Pismo. It's the Stealth Bomber of laptops: black, curvy, sleek, and it kicks lots of ass. It's perfect for writing or just surfing the Web while at Starbucks sipping coffee. Yet as much as I love my Pismo, there's nothing that can make me switch my desktop to Mac.

Why I like the PC:

1. It's less expensive, and when it comes to truly upgrading a machine, you can do it for cheap. You can't on a Mac. "Upgrading" on a Mac is maybe getting some more RAM or a new graphics card. Upgrading on my PC (which I did last month) is as follows: I managed to go from a Dual P3 system on a 100 MHz FSB to an Athlon XP 2100+ on an Nforce2 motherboard and 512 MB 333MHz DDR RAM. Total cost? Less than $400, most of which I recouped by selling my old parts to SMP fans (I did have an advantage in that I was using a Dual CPU PC system, which depreciate less over time). I carried the rest of of my existing components over, including my powerful GeForce4 Ti video card. I practically rebuilt the guts of my machine and got a system that can give the top-of-the-line Macs a run for their money for the fraction of the cost of buying a new system, PC or Mac. If I had been willing to spend a couple of hundred of bucks more, I could have sprung for the Athlon XP 2700+, and I'd be willing to take my multimedia benchmarks against the best of the Mac crowd.

2. Windows XP SP1 is an extremely stable and fast operating system. While I like the look and feel of both XP and Jaguar, I have dislikes with both. But when it comes to pure "responsiveness," XP wins hands down. It's a much more modern and advanced kernel than the Mach kernel at the heart of OS X. (Admit just how frustrating it is to see the spinning beachball of frustration whenever you try opening up a simple text document, even in Jaguar!) And XP does not crash. The only blue screens of death I have ever encountered running XP and XP SP1 were due to some beta SoundBlaster drivers I had installed. I learned that lesson and just went back to some older drivers and stability heaven again. On a PC with good hardware and good drivers (not cheap, no-name hardware or any of that proprietary stuff some system manufacturers load down on you), Windows XP is as stable as it gets. That's the double-edged sword with PC's though. You have a lot more options when it comes to hardware, but it can bite you in the ass if you're not careful. Apple eliminates this problem on the Mac by tightly controlling all the hardware, but your range of choice goes down dramatically.

3. Games, games, games, games, games. I read some Mac magazine's Switch story, and it said that you counter your PC friends' games arguement by saying 7 of the 10 Top-Selling PC games are on the Mac. Unfortunately, when 5 of those games are The Sims or expansion packs of The Sims, you're kinda screwed if you don't like The Sims. Yes, Mac does get some of the good stuff as well, like Ghost Recon and Jedi Knight II. But they get them months after the PC gets them, if they're lucky. Also, I really like games, and the vast majority of PC games never get ported over to the Mac.

4. Speed. Apple has some nice hardware, but a lot of that comes from the PC, i.e. Nvidia graphics cards, AGP, etc. What advantages it does have with the G4 CPU are nullified by an inefficient OS and laziness on Motorolla's part. PC's may use more "primitive" hardware, but whatever defeciencies from that are solved thanks to pure horsepower: faster CPU speeds, faster FSB speeds, faster memory speeds, etc. Thanks to Intel and AMD pummeling each other, we're already at 3GHz and we're screaming to the next big thing, which could potentially be ClawHammer, the 32/64-bit chip from AMD. Also, prices for near top-of-the-line CPU's drop rapidly. In a few months, I'll be able to buy that Athlon XP 2800+ CPU for less than half of what it costs today.

5. Sense of ownership. Apple owners get possesive of their systems but PC owners do as well, especially those of us who built our own. I'm not like the guys who "trick out" their PC's though. No big case windows or mods for me. Just a biege box that sits under my disk. But it's mine: I built it from scratch. I tweak it for performance. It's like the love affair some guys have with working on their cars. I like the choice and options a PC gives you, the whole "wide open" nature of it all. You don't get that with a Mac.

6. It's a PC world. It's the truth. And I use a PC at work and I have several PCs (desktops and laptops) at my home. Jaguar's made some leaps toward Mac coexisting in that world, but while I can now share documents with the PC's in my house, I still can't print to the PC network printer. Some of you would say I've been assimilated by Bill Gates; I'd reply that you guys were brainwashed into Steve Jobs' cult of personality.

In other words: it's apples and oranges folks. Or in this case, Apples and PCs. Choose the one that floats your boat, but don't try to be an elitist snob over whichever you choose.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 19, 2002)

sirfulcrum....
      i've only had the PM6100 but last time i checked you can upgrade the processor. It all depends on what model the card is compatibile with. 
Windows XP does run quite well. It's not swell on the classic Window 9.x compatibility though. I've been using it to scan 500 pictures a day and it hasn't caught on fire yet.
But i'm not sure it's the blue screen of death people really worrry about. It's that fatal exception error. But it's a gui and security preference for me. Plus i know OS X is getting upgrading more often and people on these boards give me the good or bad news.
Not to sound offensive, but i only play window games when i'm depressed. I've always thought console games were more effective. 
Mac games are quicker at getting ported thanks to aspyr or those developers sending stuff to us from DOS. But you are right. Usually any game that comes to the mac platform is uncomparable to the window one.
But you haven't thought of all those yet to be created os x games have you?=D
as much as you'd like to think it's not 90% pc world. it's just a tolerable 60% trying to be 90% 
see ya..


----------



## sirfulcrum (Dec 19, 2002)

When you swap in your new processor, how much choice do you have? Can you go with a new motherboard? How much selection is there? It's nowhere near on the scale of the PC. I'll admit that it can be daunting trying to sort out what to get, but it allows a great amount of flexibility to whatever your budget is.

Oh, don't start about "console games being better than PC games" nightmare thread. It's all relative to the user. Some games and some gaming audiences are best served on the PC. Others on the console. Some games are meant to be social and played on the couch, others are meant to be played up front while you're sitting at your desk. I like PC games. There are a lot of folks out there like me who like PC games as well, it's a multi-billion dollar industry. If you want to play PC games, you need a PC. Not a Mac. You get a Mac, and you play a few PC games that are ported over to the Mac. But you can't play a lot of cool games that aren't ported to the Mac, or the Xbox, or the PS2.

As for all those games being made for OS X, well, they'll be made for PC as well. And usually first.

And I don't know what about that "fatal exception" error you cite. I never get it. As for the GUI,  I like it. It's clean, and the taskbar lets me multitask many seperate tasks efficiently. I like the OS X dock as well, but it has problems just like the taskbar does. Other OS X users have launched gigantic threads debating the dock. But when I'm power crunching on XP, the system allows me to keep about 3-4 browser windows, a couple of Word windows open, Outlook, and my MP3 player, and whatever else I need open at the same time. And the taskbar lets me fly between applications, and most importantly, certain types of the same application, with ease. I don't like the way it'll consolidate all the IE windows into a single taskbar button; so when the taskbar gets too crowded, I'll just resize it on the fly and make it two- or three-rows deep and that takes care of the crowding.

Do my programs crash? Yes. Does my browser crash? Yes. Does it take down the OS? Never. Do my programs crash in Jaguar? Yes. Do my browser crash in Jaguar? Yes. Do they take down the OS? No. But which system is more responsive? The XP system. The kernel is more efficiently plugged in with the underlying hardware; MS built NT with x86 specifically in mind, and they have been honing it for the past eight years for that platform. Apple ported over the Mach kernel for its architecture and they have a long way to go. They've made impressive strides, but I've seen lots of honest criticism from Apple fans that there's a lot of work still left. Jaguar is still a bit sluggish, even on the newest hardware. I spent an hour in CompUSA the other day toying around with a DP tower, and while it was impressive, there were moments it also slowed down a bit too.

And speaking of compatibility with older programs... Jaguar doesn't even come close to Windows XP in terms of backwards compatibility. At least Windows XP users don't have to install two versions of Windows on their machines to use their old programs, the way OS X users have to put OS 9 as well if they want to use their legacy apps. Yeah, a lot of DOS stuff, mainly DOS games, are unplayable, but most of those are, at a minimum, 7 or 8 years old. Seven or eight years old... ancient history in computing terms. It was impressive that MS could support them for so long with the Win 9x series, but the price of progress to a stable, secure, and reliable kernel meant finally burying DOS. Still, MS does good work at letting you use older programs; with the Compatibility Mode that's built in Windows XP , you a good chance to use Windows 95-era apps.

What I'm trying to get to is the PC is a very potent machine. You get one with good hardware and XP, and it can go toe-to-toe with Apple's finest, easily. 

Case in point:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm
These guys took the fastest single processor Dell and the fastest Dual Processor Mac and took them head-to-head. The Dell absoloutely destroyed the Mac, usually by cutting the Mac's best times in half. And the Dell cost $630 less than the Mac!

So you get a machine from a good manufacturer running Windows XP, and you have a machine that's less expensive than a Mac, faster than a Mac, and just as stable as a Mac, if not moreso. Plus you have much larger hardware and software support, including games. It's compatible with the PC you use at work, with the PC you have at home, and your friends' PCs. And XP is a good operating system, and the most credible operating sytem that Microsoft has ever put out. It's fast, powerful, stable, and it is easy to use. Maybe not as easy as a Mac, but it's easy. 

So to answer the question of the thread: THAT'S WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE PC'S.

--------------------
Self-Built Athlon XP 2100+, Nforce2 motherboard, 512MB DDR, GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP SP1

Mac PowerBook (Pismo), 192 MB RAM (soon to be 512!), Mac OS X 10.2.3.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 20, 2002)

going toe to toe with a 128k mac at 8mhz?

sounds fun!

but i'm sorry

the princess is in another castle!


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 20, 2002)

I am a recent "Switcher" before I switched I used to hate the following...

1. I love Msnbc.com for news... I use to like the sleek pop out menus that had even more news... With Mac I can't get the pop outs to work at all... 

2. The State of Florida is anal because it won't let me a common Floridan/customer buy Apple Care because something about Steve Jobs, has to come down to Tallahasse and sign a special form.

3. Overpriced... Why buy a PowerMac... 867mhz computer for 1699 when I can get an intel pentium 2.5ghz for that price.

4. upgradabiblity... plug and play in XP... 

5. Programs...

6. Games.

Of course that was a few... but I've seen the light.


----------



## sirfulcrum (Dec 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ApeintheShell _
> *going toe to toe with a 128k mac at 8mhz?
> 
> sounds fun!
> ...



That's the problem with Mac fanatics... they're in perpetual denial.

Try reading the friggin' story. The most expensive Dual G4 Mac got wasted by a machine from Dell that cost $630 less. The Dell did everything the Dual G4 Mac did in half the time. Half!

Or you can go and stick your head in the sand.

That's a wake up call to Apple. Everyone knows they need faster CPU's and faster tech, because Intel and AMD are kicking the G4's ass, even if it is "superior technology" to the CISC-based x86.


----------



## Gnomo (Dec 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Hey guys, I really love you all, but let's not make this into a mac vs. pc war, dig?*


Sorry MacLuv, looks like the beast has been unleashed.


----------



## Gnomo (Dec 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by brianleahy _
> *In all seriousness, what are some popular agriculture software packages? *


I will try to get you the titles of the agriculture software packages, I don't remember the names off the top of my head...time to go talk to our friendly farmland foke.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 20, 2002)

sirfulcrum..where is your sense of humor? of course i am a mac fanatic. It's written all over my forehead. But if you will remember i said "gui and security" plus "more updates". I feel good that 
they designed my interface instead of rehashed it. That if there is
a security hole they will address and not deny it in a press conference. That Apple will at least listen to some of us
regarding updates to the operating system and programs.
I compare microsoft to the talkback app that comes with Mozilla.
Not alot of help but there anyway.
You may also notice i did not address speed, cost, and little about the game arena. That's because i constantly hear about those three subjects from mac and pc users. What they say is all factual information but they and you and me are not Apple. The future isn't written yet and things could still change for the better or worse.

Your a wise person, but it is only a compatibility mode. You'd have to downgrade. Where as i can just restart in Mac OS 9 for some photoshop work. Also we can emulate the windows operating system. The current operating system you are using.
I haven't even seen a successful mac os 9/X emulation on windows yet. Of course the windows emulation is dog slow but the fact of the matter is we can have all kinds of operating systems.
Am i ignoring Virtual PC for PC? nope. it's slow too.  It is also
a redundant name.
I do not deny that Windows has the upperhand over the Macintosh.
Yet i will never comply on the three categories above that Windows is better than a Macintosh. 
Thank you for replying to all my posts and i hope your hand doesn't hurt from typing too much. Have a nice day!


----------



## wiz (Dec 20, 2002)

the warz have begun...

But keep this in mind,
attack and counter intellegently,
and follow the board rules, else u get kicked

** we don't make rules, but discover them**


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 20, 2002)

tell ya the truth i don't think the wars have really ended.
There will always be some reluctance towards people who
use other platforms and a right to defend your own.
I am not saying my computer is better i just beleive there is a place for macintosh in the world and prefer not it to be a pc world. 
So whether my words are regarded as "them's fighting words" is irrelevant. I already have answered the question stated in the thread and i feel my posts were justified.

I do not consider anyone a rival on this forum which is idiotic in it's own right. Rather since this is a forum i like the discussion. 
Even if it can be aggressive and cruel. Still i am not limited by other people's opinions of my being a fanatic and will continue to be one as i see fit.


----------



## Sigma (Jan 2, 2003)

sirfulcrum pretty much summed it up.  I just purchased a Powerbook G4 and am absolutely in love with it but Apple has a long way to go before I will purchase a Mac desktop.  The main issue for me is probably games.  I don't play a lot of games but the games I do play, like Fifa and F1-2002, I play a lot and unfortunately they aren't available for the Mac.  I don't really have a loyalty to either one as I think they are both great products.  After buying this Powerbook I doubt I will buy another Windows notebook but at the same time I have a hard time believing I will ever buy a Mac desktop.


----------



## plastic (Jan 3, 2003)

I guess games does make a big difference in the choice of platform. I am very thankful that Unreal Tournament is making its way to Macs really soon, and since it might be running on OpenGL, it means better graphics!


----------



## stakk (Jan 4, 2003)

Why PC users don't buy Mac:

First of all, some people think that Windows is the only operating system in the market. Or they might not even know that Windows is a operating system at all, they might suspect that the computer is windows. They simply don't understand even the basics of computer's. 

Secondly (as somebody have noticed the same thing), most of Wintel users are stuck on that GigaHz thing, and honestly I won't even bother try to explain these things, because most of Wintel users don't  want to believe that the Ghz is not the only 'feature' that matters.

Thirly, most of people who says that Mac is bad, have not ever used Mac! I mean really used! 

Personally I have started to get interested more and more about Mac and MacOS X! This is because of I'm tired of Wintel world. It is true that you can upgrade your system, but there are so many of those vendors, and that makes things complicated. I mean, if you buy a Mac, you get a package which contains hardware and software which are designed to W O R K together. But on Windows world, it's always fighting with those drivers etc. This is why I'm using Linux on PC world; you can actually affect to OS, and you don't have to reboot every time you add something to your system. 

And what becomes to gaming, I have my GBA for those purposes . I also prefer some console for gaming purposes for same reason; hw & sw work better compared on wintel gaming!

--
Stakk


----------



## MacXtreme (Jan 7, 2003)

In my personal experience, the main reason people buy PC's is because they want to run a particular app that is not available on the Mac.  In my extended family, many of which are now buying Macs, they still maintain their PCs.  Not because they like them, but because they need to run specific physician database programs.  Those that don't are not interested in knowing anything more about the machine than what it takes to send email and do taxes.  Since they are forced to use PCs at work, its the devil they know.  No learning curve whatsoever, and no compatability issues with friends, etc.  The logic is unassailable.  

Apple is doing the right thing right now by focusing on design because the only thing that can overcome cold logic is irrational desire.  They are tapping into the same impulse that makes people buy SUVs and luxury cars.  Logic dictates we all drive Yugos.  The BMW of computers indeed.


----------



## BlackMagic (Jan 12, 2003)

Well, from my standpoint, a Mac has always been my main machine since I jumped from my Apple IIe. But about a year ago, I gave up on trying to use it for gaming (since I prefer PowerBooks over desktops). My PowerBook 667 is still my prime machine, but it was a *lot* less expensive to put together an Athlon 200+ system than it would have been to buy even the least expensive PowerMac desktop (and I still get better performance when gaming than a good friend's brand-new PowerMac).

I'm not saying I like Windows better; I don't. But if you're asking why educated people look to the Wintel platform, it's simple. The price for high performance is much less.

I'm a big Apple fan, but until they significantly lower their prices or do *something* to get a lot better performance (i.e. use IBM instead of Motorola for high-performance processors), I can't justify gaming on the Mac platform. I still think that Mac laptops are a lot better value than Wintel, but on the high end, the Wintel laptops are capable gaming machines, while PowerBooks are not. This is being said without my seeing the new PowerBooks in action, so don't try fighting that one with me; I simply don't care. I'm not going to spend $3,300 on a gaming laptop when I put together a much speedier AMD box for around $900. I have a machine just barely bigger than my G4 Cube (a Shuttle box - 7"x8"x12"), performs better than the top-of-the-line G4 towers (for gaming at least), and weighs only 12 pounds.

I still think the Windows OS doesn't perform as snappily as Mac OS (especially X), but that really doesn't factor into the equation when using a Windows box means that I can afford to play my favorite games (Warcraft III, UT and UT2003, and a few others) at an acceptable speed.

OK, I know I'm hitting that from a gaming standpoint, but a lot of the same arguments apply in a business setting. If I'm a small business owner who can buy ten new mid-range machines for my employees for $1,200 apiece, why would I go out and look at a competitor who's selling their mid-range machine for $2,500+? In a small business, most owners won't look at the ongoing support and productivity costs, which are probably significantly higher in a Wintel shop. In large companies, the support technicians have a vested interest in recommending machines they're specialized in - generally Wintel. It's a vicious circle, but Apple has to get their performance up and lower the prices when they do so! The days of 20% margins need to end for Apple. It's great for shareholders in theory, but if the company fails because they're not staying competitive, what good are they doing anyone?

In my opinion, Apple's one true sweet spot is the 12" iBook. Many of my IT friends purchased this as their first Mac because it's easily portable, fairly powerful, runs UNIX (yep, we're geeks), and HITS THE PRICE "SWEET SPOT." I think the 12" PowerBook will win some followers, but for now, Apple needs to make some changes before a lot of people will adopt the platform.


----------



## Sogni (Jan 12, 2003)

I just found it much cheaper buying a console than any PC or Mac for my gaming needs. And with the exception of XBox (which I stay away from) I don't contribute to the Bill Gates fund. 

Plus you can rent console games before you buy 'em to make sure you like it before dropping $50 for a new game! A big plus!


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jan 12, 2003)

Since i already went through a mess of explanation above here is a awkward conclusion:

Apple needs to advertise their operating system on television in addition to the switch ads. This will attract miffed pc users and the newcomer.

Computer users need to face the facts that the console market is becoming the replacement for pc games. There is a huge limit in the genre's for the pc games. Some of them are rehashes of console games others find a niche in a certain genre. It is more likely games coming to the macintosh would be diversions on your day off or while your producing a project. 

A low budget has been an excuse for the pc user for the longest time. I'm suprised they can afford cars, college, or to live in the house or apartment they are in. If they can spend money on those what is different from spending it on a mac? Lower prices is not the key, it's less demanding consumers. Until people understand the computer is not for fun and ms office alone the sooner they'll buy a better computer.


----------



## Giaguara (Jan 12, 2003)

my uncles dont buy a mac cos they dont have money. but htey hate microsoft so they are pre-switch = mostly linux now 

i could say i cant find my fav games for pc. heh, all my favs are either mac or *x


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 12, 2003)

My second friend has jumped to Windows for the games. For a second time the Windows systems couldn't work with the games/graphics cards. So now my friends are stuck with systems that on paper look great but can't actually do anything. Funny having them come over to my place so they can see games like Ghost Recon, Rogue Spear and Quake III up and running for more than 5 minutes at a time without having to reboot.

I feel for them, they invested money where they thought they would get the most out of their systems, but when you can't keep a system playing games for more than a couple minutes and that was the main reason for having a PC, it sure seems like a bad platform choice to me. I would rather play my games at frame rates equal to or better than your average motion picture for as long as I want than move to PCs getting all the games first running at 300+ frames per second but have bad quality or only about 5 minutes of game play.

Hey, at least they have great systems on paper though.  Specially when they are being used as paper weights.


----------



## pds (Jan 13, 2003)

Here's an interesting bit,

Here in Egypt, people really think that Bill Gates 
1 invented the internet (because of IE)
2 owns IBM
3 owns Intel and makes the chips specifically for Windows

People all stand in awe of my old tangerine iBook, they simply have no concept that there is any other choice in personal computers.

Apple still exists in the States because of their investment in the education market. Students are exposed to them and therefore consider them as consumers. In the rest of the world (perhaps the larger market for pc's) they are unknown


----------



## Ripcord (Jan 26, 2003)

I'll throw in the things I usually hear:

- Price
- Speed
- Don't want to get locked into a proprietary solution (wait guys, don't laugh yet)
- Software availability
- Hardware availability
- Everyone uses Windows

I can't really argue with price or speed, sorry guys...

As far as the proprietary solution, I have to admit that I can understand where some people are coming from with this.  There are definitely upsides to the tight-control, vertical solution thing, but I'd probably be even more uncomfortable with Apple if they controlled 95% of the market than I am with MS right now, as much as I like Apple as a company.  I certainly wouldn't mind seeing 1/3 or 1/2 market share, though =)

Software avail, not so sure how relevant this is.  Nearly everything I need/want is on both platforms (there are things I want that Mac has and Windows doesn't, definitely), and I'd bet 50+% of people at home just use their PCs for web browsing, email, and word processing.  Yeah, games are missing from the Mac, but I usually have a seperate system for games anyway.

Hardware avail, I'm split on this one.  I really DON'T like the limited peripherals/choices and premium prices, but I definitely appreciate the simplicity and compatibility that comes along with it.  I like freedom, but I also believe computers should work as reliably as my TV (which IS reliable, if you're wondering =), so I'm completely on the fence with this one.

Nearly everyone I know has a PC, and we use Windows pretty much exclusively at work.  There certainly is a simplicity that comes with everyone using the same/similar thing.  (Sort of the same simple comfort most Americans have in that nearly everyone we know speaks the same language.  Personally, I'd rather be multi-lingual =)

With all this said, I own two Macs.  =) 

*chink* my $.02 in the pile.


----------



## tigervette (Jan 27, 2003)

I had just purchased a 14" Ibook and I've been using M$ products for the last 10 years.  So its been an interesting change going between the two platforms.  I love the way the Macs are set up and the ease of use of OSX.  However there are some points that STRONGLY irritated me. 

-  Mac's DVD player doesn't support the use of closed captioning while nearly every DVD software for the PC does.  

- I cannot mount a DVD image on Mac's image loader but I can on the PC with Daemon Tools.  

These two applications are critical for my use of the laptop since I already have the perfect desktop for my use.  If Apple can release an add on pack for the DVD player or have other software DVD players play on the mac then that will solve a lot of problems to start with... perhaps with some time and luck something can be found to work!!  =)


----------



## edX (Jan 27, 2003)

so, people don't buy macs because they're not good DVD players? that's about equivilent to the games argument. seems like you can buy a real DVD player for cheap and watch them on a real screen with much better quality.


----------



## Ripcord (Jan 27, 2003)

Ed,

I agree, I never understood the "watch DVDs on your VGA monitor" thing, it makes more sense to go buy an $80 DVD player and a $130 19-inch TV.

...Except the argument that works goes:  "Why would I want to buy and carry a seperate  DVD player on a plane when I already have a perfectly good Powerbook with a much bigger screen?"

Of course, then there's people like me, who have the PC hooked up to their HDTVs because the video quality looks better than it does off of a progressive DVD player (and I needed some way to justify spending the money on my "super-system" =)


----------



## tigervette (Jan 28, 2003)

The reason why to use it as a DVD player is because I want to try an experiment... having all forms of entertainment under one platform, like movies, music, internet, console games and emulators, etc... and then hook it all up to the TV... much easier than having to lug around all of the console systems, dvd players, etc to a friends house or car or whatever...=)


----------



## quiksan (Jan 28, 2003)

maybe it's been said already - but a bit of a hang-up for me is the fact that I have $1,000's worth of software for my PCs that i've accumulated over the years.  granted, I've realized as of late (about the same time I decided that I MUST have the 17" PB) that most of the apps I use regularly can be counted on 1 hand (not the 2 cd books that I have in my computer desk), and half of those are freeware!

so I wouldn't say the lack of software, but the fact that you have to repurchase stuff you've already got.  it's kind of a bummer, but when you stop to realize all that Jaguar includes, you're pretty good to go...

just my $.02


----------



## edX (Jan 28, 2003)

IF i were a pc user, i think your answer would be my biggest concern quiksan. which is one reason i think the concept of being an adder, rather than a switcher makes a lot of sense to most people when they first transition. not only is there an investment of money in those old apps, there is an investment of time and effort in learning them and the m$ way of doing things. even older mac users face this issue to a lesser degree when transitioning to os x from an older os.  it's not cheap and there is a short, but immediate, learning curve.  it took me a couple of months to make the switch to full time os x user when i first started.


----------



## bigbadbill (Jan 28, 2003)

I saw something very interesting on TV last night. They were showing all the technology used to put together NFL Films. This elaborate facility built to house a giant network of computers to track and access archived films and information (all windows based) but ALL this information was funneled to just 3 little Macs for editing and creative. GO APPLE!

We _can_ all get along!


----------



## tovoru (Feb 1, 2003)

Maybe they believe the innacurate 'tests'/'results' - PROPAGANDA - instead of a more accurate accounting of the tests.

The following came from a smalldog.com newsletter......

GATEWAY GAFFE

Last week I mentioned the Gateway commercial comparing their flat panel machine to the iMac. Aside from the fact that they had to use animation to give their computer move anything close to the degree of motion an iMac has, Gateway apparently also had to fudge their testing to make the claim of speed advantages! Not surprisingly, the Gateway testing said that the iMac was really slow compared to their entry. Well, Jason Wooten at Visual Dynamics (an Apple Specialist) took a closer look at the testing. With the caveat that Jason's testing was informal, here's his report:

+---------------+

The report compares a Gateway (iMac rip-off -- you've probably seen the commercial), iMac 700 CD/RW, the high-end Gateway, and the 17-inch iMac. All four were compared in four separate "speed" tests.

1. 3D Video performance, using Quake III demo
2. Java web page loading, using iBench 3.0
3. Boot-up timing
4. Time to load a 2.41M 104 page PDF into Acrobat Reader 5.0

According to the results of the test, strangely enough, the low-end Gateway beat the iMacs in all of the above by far. (Imagine that!)

Our experience with the iMacs didn't match up with Gateway's results. Off and testing we went.


1. Quake III Tests

What they say: Their testing shows frame rates on the 17-inch iMac around 42 fps, and on the 15-inch iMac around 29 fps, and the Gateways were up around 120-140 fps.

What the reality is: etestinglabs, in all of their wisdom, didn't (and still doesn't) understand that Quake III Demo (from 1999) is NOT an OS X product. Therefore, they installed it and ran it in Classic mode under X. Duh. I emailed and confirmed this with them. Even though it was *clearly* pointed out to them that they are running this test in an "emulated" OS, and they acknowledge it, their excuse is  "...the tests focuses on the typical home user...who expects the computer to work as-is, out of the box." Of course, which typical home user "out of the box" knows to go to the internet, search for the Quake III Demo (from 1999), download it, install it, and then determine that the frame rates are slow? And then not think to see if there are any updates? You know, if they can download the software, they can probably (in most cases) figure out there is an update.

Our testing shows that when you run Q3Demo on a 17-inch booted into OS 9, it cruises at about 80 fps (double what they reported). Additionally, if you install Q3 with the OS X update and check the fps, you are well over 100 consistently.

Bottom line: Their tests were bogus.


2. We couldn't duplicate the iBench 3.0 tests because you have to have an iBench server to do the tests. Hmmmm.


3. Boot-Up Time

What they say: The Gateway boots from a power-off condition to power on and ready to use in about 27 seconds. The iMac(s) took about 1:20.

The reality: After a visit to the Gateway store, we couldn't find ANY Gateway that booted and was ready to use in 27 seconds. The ones we tested averaged around 40 seconds. The iMacs came in at approx 54 seconds -- so the Gateways were faster on this test: However...

Bottom line: How often to does a user have to wait for a Mac to boot? Is this even a valid test? We realize that booting a PC occurs more frequently, due to saaaay, crashes / blue screens / illegal operations / installing drivers etc. etc. Does the fact you don't generally have to boot a Mac over and over again come in to play?


4. Load a 2.4M PDF

What they say: The Gateways load a 2.4M PDF in about 5 seconds. The iMacs can take as long as 13s on the 15-inch and almost 8s on a 17-inch.

The reality: What? Are these guys nuts? Our Mac tests made it really clear. We decided to open a 6M 232 page (Apple LaserWriter service manual) PDF on the iMac 17. It opened in 4 seconds flat. A little longer on the 15-inch. The iMacs smoked the Gateways in opening PDF documents. They should have opened a 20M PDF and seen the difference. iMac = 7s, Gateway, after 2 illegal operations, took 18s (about a minute if you include the illegal operations).

Bottom line: The guys probably tested opening the file in Acrobat 5 in Classic. The results they provided on the iMacs were wrong -- way wrong.


More info:
1) The new Gateway computers do NOT swivel like the iMac -- they only tilt up and down.
2) The 999 Gateway apparently (according to their site) doesn't include a modem. It's $30 more.
3) The 999 Gateway doesn't include a CD/RW. It's a standard CD drive. Add another $100 for this.
4) There is no Superdrive option on any of the new Gateways.
5) To get your Gateway, add approx $85 in shipping.
6) Gateway doesn't include Quicken (another upgrade).

Our tests were informal -- We just took a 15-inch and 17-inch iMac out of a box, updated them to 10.2, installed Quake III Demo, and did the above tests. We matched our "test-bed" to be as close to etestinglabs.com's as possible.


----------



## TommyWillB (Feb 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *...why PC users don't buy Apple products...*


 Why don't people who live in small towns with a lot of character shop in their downtown five and dime instead of Wal Mart?

Why do people buy $.99 fat-laden food at MacDonalds when they can get real food served by well treated/paid employees across the street?

Why isn't the entire planet more enlightened?



Fact is... people are cheap and don't really know what is good for them!


Now I would never say that to their face nor off this board because I think all people deserve respect... but you asked?


The only real question here is why you "need" to "know" this unknowable thing so badly?


----------



## Aeronyth (Feb 2, 2003)

I'm currently running on an old PC...300 MHZ Pentium 2...and i'm planning on buying a new computer soon.  Up until the last few months, i was the 'macs suck' common PC user.  I was judging this statement from the Apple computers that i had used in elementary school...I think they were OS8.  Well, those computers actually did suck, they crashed alot and were slow.  When i discovered OSX and used it for about 10 minutes at the Apple store, i was impressed. It looked nice, ran smoothly, and had a bundle of useful applications that came with the OS itself.  Not to mention the awesome design of the computer itself (iMac).  I'm still debating if i should purchase a new PC or a new Macintosh.  Mainly for a few reasons..

Lack of software/games -- You just don't have the endless range of applications.  Go to a store and look through the software section...it's all for Windows.  Not to mention the amount of free/pirated software available for windows.

Upgradability --  With my PC, i can buy anything new and just slam  it inside.  Or, i can build my own PC from scratch.  (I'm not too sure about upgrading a PowerMac tower or something, but the iMac or eMac don't seem to be very openable. )

...I'm sure there's a few more that i can't think of right now. 
What it really comes down to, is fear that you won't like your -NEW- system.  I've never owned a mac before, if i buy one, and decide i can't use it like i can use my PC, it's a great waste of money.

Of course, i know about OSX's great features, which most people dont even care to learn about...(Mac's suck)

It'd be nice if i could have a mac for a few months to see how i like it before i buy one....I can't decide.


----------



## Blaqb0x (Feb 3, 2003)

Ok, 

Before OSX, macs were completely crippled.  No command line, process control, took them forever to get multi-tasking, ever try network trouble shooting on a MAC?, appletalk was slow as hell, try minimizing a window on a mac.  Yea if macs were so great why did they completely dump their old os and go w/ a unix-based system in one version.   

Now for OSX,  it uses many technologies used by the *nix community, hell, it is a *nix platform. samba being the biggest most useful for integrating in a windows network environment. Let's face it. MS has the best networking environment, if you can't integrate into it, then your going to cause lots of problems.  OSX has inherited all the strengths of the *nix platform.  If it runs on *nix it can run on or will soon run on OSX. (Smart move by Apple) I'm sorry anything before OSX was crap.  Trust me, I use OS 9 daily and it's given my grey hairs in places you don't want to know about.

also there is this little thing out there called MONEY, MACS cost so much more that the average PC.  Yes they do use a higher standard for their hardware, but the average person probably won't notice the difference or even use it to its full potential, you really need a screamer for email, porn searching, muzic downloads.   PC parts are so mainstream, you can go just about anywhere to buy the part you need. Mac parts are harder to find(this is changing though).  The life of the iMac is basically the life of the monitor, once that is gone your sh*t out of luck.  

I like your 'PC users are uneducated' arguement.  All those commercial w/ testimonials of people saying 'Yea, PC's are too hard to use, Plug in and get mad, I'm an idiot, blah...blah' well apple's whole sales pitch is that mac's are bonehead proof(people that don't bother reading the manual or haven't discovered pop-up help)  I work for a physics department and 95% of our machines are PC's (win/linux)  If physicists/engineers are 'uneducated' what are you?

OK,

I really hate pre-OSX machines. But OSX is really cool and I'd like to get one someday.  I really don't consider them Macs but rather a very clean *nix box.  I really don't see what all the fuss is about "Just use what works"  Windoze is OK but it gets boring using it.  I really don't see how they get off calling it Windows when it really has the very primitive window management features. 

if you use gnome or kde, they have window stacking, virtual desktops,  control over window attribute history, etc.  Win/OSX  don't have these(inately).  Some of the professors use OSX, I look at their desktop and they have 20+ windows open!  Once one of them was trying to mount a windows share and couldn't, it turns out he had already mounted it but could'nt see it because of all the windows blocking his desktop. duh.  

that's all i have to say for now....I have to get to class


----------



## Blaqb0x (Feb 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bigbadbill _
> *I saw something very interesting on TV last night. They were showing all the technology used to put together NFL Films. This elaborate facility built to house a giant network of computers to track and access archived films and information (all windows based) but ALL this information was funneled to just 3 little Macs for editing and creative. GO APPLE!
> 
> We can all get along! *




Yea, in the movies you ALWAYS see macs. Usually doing what they are intended for...web browsing and email. 
but if you look behind the scenes you see what really makes the world go round.  PC's.  

In Time mag., you see the hardware used to make all the visual effects for the matrix,  cluster of PC's.  How do they simulate the effects of earthquakes, PC cluster running linux.  what does the mightiest military in the world use, pc's. It's just PC's time to shine right now.  I'm sure Mac's will contribute something meaningfull someday.  Hey, if switching over to a *nix platform doesn't work for apple maybe they can buy out IBM's OS/2 and run OSXVI on that!


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 7, 2003)

Blaqbox...So you would say the previous Mac OS was crap? That's a bold statement. Since Adobe, Macromedia and Quark released their applications specifically for the Mac first. Without the previous system to use for reference we wouldn't have Mac OS X or any of those software vendors behind our platform. 

Contribute something meaningful you say?

Any magazine you pick up at the newstand is most likely layed out in mac os 9
A large majority of graphic designers and web designers only use the mac platform
Yes there are movies made on the mac and you probably own one. 
Apple changed the "pc world" with the macintosh and it continues today. Otherwise, dell would still be selling brown pc's and you'd have an ugly beige box on your desk. 
One more thing, warez is not a meaningful contribution toward society.


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ApeintheShell _
> *Blaqbox...So you would say the previous Mac OS was crap? That's a bold statement. Since Adobe, Macromedia and Quark released their applications specifically for the Mac first. Without the previous system to use for reference we wouldn't have Mac OS X or any of those software vendors behind our platform.
> 
> Contribute something meaningful you say?
> ...



I am with Apeintheshell...

Mac's.. have set the standards for PC's to follow when it comes to Webdesign, Movie editing etc... Without Mac's... Pentium 4 Would be nothing... Even though now it's taunting Adobe products as if it's always been able to use them successfully.... Lets see... Who's more stable... Mac or PC... Mac's win hands down.


----------



## Aeronyth (Feb 8, 2003)

I personally dislike any other mac os besides OSX.  The other versions weren't half of what OSX is...

OSX revolutionized Apple, and it's growing on me.


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aeronyth _
> *I personally dislike any other mac os besides OSX.  The other versions weren't half of what OSX is...
> 
> OSX revolutionized Apple, and it's growing on me. *



Well I am a "Switcher" I only have limited memory of what OS 6 and OS 7 were like in my High School days... I was not deeply fond of those memories... maybe it's because the school only used Mac Classic 2 machines... which were limited on memory etc.

OS-X to me however is a remarkable beast that if the ignorant world of PC users were to suddenly look at what OS-X can do with Unix... in the background and X11... (which I played with a little little bit...) they too would switch if it weren't for the Gaming aspect... Face it guys the Gaming aspect on PC's are way better than Mac's.... but still Mac is made for Graphics and photo's... not gaming.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 8, 2003)

The best game ever created for the macintosh was sim city 2000. 
There haven't been major mac games because video cards weren't a big deal with mac's till 1996,1997. 
Than in 1999 Apple realized they needed faster and better video cards. Unfortunetly, the 3rd party developers only used half of the capabilities so these games could be run on lower processors with less VRAM instead of using the true strength of the system. 
When Mac OS X came in the picture there was little time to worry about games because it was a brand new system. It would have to make the platform more popular. Thus the switch ads came. PC users always complain about lack of games but mac users were discouraged as well.
Don't dread that there will never be mac games, just don't expect them to take advantage of the new cards until developers use the resources provided.
Mac developers need to step back, formulate a plan, and stop thinking about pc games and more about what there games could look like if they took advantage of the streamlined graphics.


----------



## Quicksilver (Feb 15, 2003)

SYNOPSIS:

one reason i belive is unfortunatle the hardware even though its very nice, its also very expensive. 

When somone very first decides to purchase a computer dosent know a thing about it after talking to friends (majority being PC Users) tell them to visit the local computer store there an instant PC User. But when it comes to the curiosity of the mac OS and Hardware the user is warned, scared off, laghed at and so on. Because it comes down to two things, two main barriers. 

PROBLEM

(1) Price: it dosent matter how hard you try a user IS going to go for the CHEAPEST option eg: many PC's have the same if not more options, software, hardware components, upgradability and most of all the close support of the PC user next door.

(2) OS - Operating System: Unfortunatly the worlds greatest operating system (OS X)  is limited to Mac hardware (see (1)) which is known to be excellent and now becoming well respected due to the UNIX core by PC users. And the apple store/Apple centre is a long way away to see it running in action (see (1)). But as you can see there is dissapointment growing rapidly in the pc world many in there hearts like OS X many would switch over many want to use it business wants to use it. i see people eyes glow apon the sight of the OS, BUT (see(1)).

SOLUTION:

Unfortunatly to truly win great market share OS X needs to be either stripped down to run on PC's or totally released exclusivly to the PC Market. ASK yourself why is LINUX quickly becoming the OS of choice??? IT RUNS ON PC's that are CHEAPO!!! why??? B FOR BUSINESS!!! is the answer.

PROBLEM 2:

Apple would never do such a thing because its against there philosophy to just develop software.


SOLUTION 2:

1) Sell OS X for PC's. The world looks at apple for the cheaper alternative to windows OS's and the professional choice for business. Apple Hardware dies out because other systems are cheaper than mac Hardware Apple takes greater market share. catches up with windows very quickly possivly reaching over 50 - 60%


2) Sell stripped down version to business for a very cheap price no iProducts just microsoft office a great teaser for mac customers to purchase full Apple hardware at home thus buying the iProducts.


Mabey im wrong but Apple needs to at least start looking along this road....


----------



## Aeronyth (Feb 15, 2003)

I have a feeling that OSX on a PC, (the PC not having the hardware that an Apple uses in their computers) would suck.

But, maybe i am wrong. I dunno.


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aeronyth _
> *I have a feeling that OSX on a PC, (the PC not having the hardware that an Apple uses in their computers) would suck.
> 
> But, maybe i am wrong. I dunno. *



Actually PC'S do have the hardware... but not the following...

1. Optimization of OS-X on a X86 envirnoment... (Pentuim/AMD)

2. the newest mac's have USB and Firewire... so do PC's no problem there.

3. Hard-drives are IDE compliant... no problem there...

4. Video Cards... Are not OS-X compliant even though they use the AGP Bus... Problem here...

These are a few... but lets face it... Mac and Pc's will always be opposites... otherwise Bill Gates is (cough Cough...) caught in a real MONOPOLY...


----------



## Aeronyth (Feb 16, 2003)

Not if Apple and Microsoft agreed to it, it wouldn't be a monopoly?

I mean, if apple gives microsoft/intel/someone OSX for PC, they can't turn around and say "You have a monopoly of the computer world".  Well, they could, but it's kindof hipocritical.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 16, 2003)

There is no way i want to see the video professor selling his cd's for microsoft v.X

In the hayday of Apple they looked at the pentium chip which was cheap and fast just like it is today.  Later on there were clones with mac os running on them. We all know what that led to. I don't think Apple is in that much trouble as perceived. 
But they've taken alot of risks especially with mac os x and their own software. But they learned a lesson from the clones saga that i hope they don't repeat again.

Besides, the pc world is always spouting they can copy any user interface. Since they've done it in all versions of windows i don't see why they need our operating system anyway. 

I'm apeintheshell and that's..the rest of the story


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aeronyth _
> *Not if Apple and Microsoft agreed to it, it wouldn't be a monopoly?
> 
> I mean, if apple gives microsoft/intel/someone OSX for PC, they can't turn around and say "You have a monopoly of the computer world".  Well, they could, but it's kindof hipocritical. *



Ok lets review here... M$ has hmmm lets make up an imaginary yet practicaly number... of the PC Computer World... 

85% Windows/Wintel PC's...
5% Linux
10% Unix, Beos, Mac Os X...

For Gates to acquire Macintosh... Would mean a 10% increase in his profits and the demise of the Macitosh System as it is known...

95% Fictional Number of his share is ops... There is that word that Clinton tried to make an issue of... Is...  Is a Monopoly.


----------



## Aeronyth (Feb 16, 2003)

Sure, it's a monopoly, but if apple gave them OSX, who's going to sue them?


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aeronyth _
> *Sure, it's a monopoly, but if apple gave them OSX, who's going to sue them? *



Try the US Government once more.


----------



## usmkehnc (Feb 20, 2003)

I'm a PC user because that is what I know and grew up using.  I enjoy being able to build and upgrade my system with several available options.   Windows XP has been VERY stable for me, and there isn't anything that I can't do on my PC that I absolutely NEED a Mac for.  However, there is certainly a part of me that really wants one.   There is a Mac store near me that I have been to several times.   My biggest problem, as stated earlier, is the cost of a Mac.  I like the Power Mac G4, and they start at $1500. I saw a link on the screen savers that discussed building one and I got very interested until I figured out what it would cost.   So, although I would like a G4, I guess if you handed me $2K I may spend it on a motorcycle or a couple kayaks, not necessarily a computer that I think is cool.   So, I  think that the Macs are cool, but I'm having a hard time justifying one on that reason alone. Will I be able to take advantage of Jaguar  on a Blue and White G3?


----------



## Reality (Feb 20, 2003)

Well I'm a new switcher Here's why it was hard for me to move.

1. Used Windows my whole life.
2. Their price.
3. Their new OS looked complex. 
4. Their Power.
5. I was told "nothing" runs on them.
6. Everyone said I shouldn't get one.

What I did about it.

1. Saw the switch ad.
2. Looked them up online
3. Learned the truth.
4. Played with them at a Apple store.
5. Came home with a beautiful eMac.

I don't regret switching. I understand the strength and weakness of the Macs and I'm happy with with my buy. My friends are jealous now for I will never have the problems they face but they are happy with all the things they can run and I can't.


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Reality _
> *Well I'm a new switcher Here's why it was hard for me to move.
> 
> 1. Used Windows my whole life.
> ...



That's exactly what I did... I have no regrets... but I do miss my PC games lmao... but still I won't trade my baby... (Power PC Mac G4 etc..) for anything.


----------



## powermac (Feb 21, 2003)

Many of my friends that own PC's. to them the Macintosh is a obscured thing. They don't know anything about them, never see them used or advertised. When I tell them that I use M$ office on my Mac, they become even more confused. Simply put they just don't know and are afraid of it.
Another reason I believe is price. Many fail to realize the quality of a computer. PC's are disposable in a sense. Many have purchased two computer to my one Mac. The technology becomes outdate quickly in the PC world. Many of my conversations center around them always upgrading. I still have my first Apple IIe, that runs and works. 
Last, in my opinion, still many believe that no software is available for the Macintosh. That rumor is one of the hardest to dispel with the PC crowd. 
I do see a trend starting to happen, at least in my daily contacts. Many of the old PC users are sick of M$, and their endless versions of windows and upgrades that appear to be the same. The XP users are frustrated with many things. Including the annoying pop-up features in the OS, and security issues. 
Of those friends that I have gotten to buy Macs now love them. 
Just my little piece....


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by powermac _
> *Many of my friends that own PC's. to them the Macintosh is a obscured thing. They don't know anything about them, never see them used or advertised. When I tell them that I use M$ office on my Mac, they become even more confused. Simply put they just don't know and are afraid of it.
> Another reason I believe is price. Many fail to realize the quality of a computer. PC's are disposable in a sense. Many have purchased two computer to my one Mac. The technology becomes outdate quickly in the PC world. Many of my conversations center around them always upgrading. I still have my first Apple IIe, that runs and works.
> Last, in my opinion, still many believe that no software is available for the Macintosh. That rumor is one of the hardest to dispel with the PC crowd.
> ...



I agree with you... The problem... with Macintosh is that they fail to drop the prices in such a competive way... that the market would be more satuatred with them...

Sure the prices are going down lately to compete... but lets face it.. The flaw of pricing is probably the #1 turn off to die hard PC users... It was for me for a long time... 

When I made the Switch... I went to a real Authorized Mac Center... Where the sales people only dealt with Mac's... not PC's... So they were able to show me the computer... let me play on it... answer all my tech questions... and boom I "Switched."


----------



## lurk (Feb 21, 2003)

It is funny, I am getting a new machine at work and I wanted to get a Mac but the purchasing people said no.  I have to get a Dell no ifs and or buts.  Well I'll slap Linux on it and be OK I guess.

Now here is the funny part when I configure any machines to be on parity with the Mac I wanted (with the exception of CPU Ghz) they are all comming out more expensive than my original Mac request.

Sure you can get a rinky dink box for a couple of hundred dollars but as soon as you step out of that striped down minimal configuration you are out of luck.

At the top end the Powerbook vs Dell Precision the Dell was on the order of $1500 more and outside of my buget.

Go Figure,
-Eric

Caveats:  

I was using the Government GSA prices as this would be paid for via a government contract.
Apple reduced their prices by about $300 dollars for the GSA price from retail. 
Dell increased their price by about $600 from retail.  
So there is some Oooh it is the taxpayer's money so lets try to shaft them going on here. So call your congressman and tell them reduce the buget by requireing people to purchase Macs for government contract work.  Oh I forgot Dell is from Texas.. nevermind


----------



## fryke (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by powermac _
> *PC's are disposable in a sense. Many have purchased two computer to my one Mac. The technology becomes outdate quickly in the PC world.*



You're right. But I personally guess, Apple WOULD like to sell you a Dual G5 at 3.2 GHz by now, and believe me, you WOULD want to upgrade faster, if only Apple were able to deliver. Yes, it's Motorola's fault, yes, it's IBM's fault, but it's also Apple's fault.

With the first PCI-PowerMacs, Apple finally brought prices of the Pro Macs down to reasonable levels, comparable to other high end desktop machines.

But Apple's still doing so much R&D for hardware... And it doesn't make _real_ sense. I mean: They COULD use a PC motherboard and a PC processor for their Macs. Of _course_ it wouldn't be the same, but my personal guess is - and that's backed up by Apple's decision to kill the clones in 1997 - that many, many Mac users would buy cheap PCs rather than Apple machines as soon as you could have 'the same thing, basically' on Intel/AMD hardware, i.e. Mac OS X for PC Compatibles. Well, I might still get that iBook that will arrive in about 10 hours (yesssss!), but for desktop machines that you can put under your desk? (Ah, yes, that's why I want them to be called something else...)


----------



## rjwc (Mar 6, 2003)

One word: ignorance!
Solution: PR

Ciao, VB
(programmer since 1974, MacHead since 1985, never looked back).


----------



## martijnvandijk (Mar 6, 2003)

Maybe it is as simple as this

There's no such thing as a PC user or a Mac user. There's actually 3 kinds of computer users:

1 - Ignorant, non-savvy people, trying and struggling to send their first email and browsing their first web sites. They are yet to experience the complete hell of multimedia on their recently acquired low-priced PC (My estimate: about 80% of the addressable market)

2 - Experienced, non-freaky users, disappointed by the possibilities and shortcomings of the PC world and looking for improvement of their situation. These customers are ready for a Mac. However, as the sunk cost theory doesn't mean anything to them, they feel stuck with their  2500 PC which they would have to replace. And especially since they have continued spending on it since they bought the machine (added a new graphics card, replaced the processor and upgraded the DVD-player to a DVD-burner), they will never ever get anything more then  500 for it when they try to sell it. Therefore, a large share of them will just stick to their existing machine, trying to make the best out of it. The fact that the Mac is so poorly available and actual advertisement/PR is almost non-existent does not help getting them to switch of course. My intelligent guess is that this group is about 15% of the total market.

3 - Techy, freaky, very advanced customers (like all of us here?), knowing exactly what they want. They won't switch to anything else they want themselves and they are using their preferred OS already for many years and they have a perfectly good reason for using it. Not the part of the market Apple should be trying to address, as it is almost saturated.

In short, the customers that need a Mac the most (group 1 & 2) are virtually unreachable as the true virtues of the Mac are too difficult to explain (they have no reference) of the switch is just too costly. Therefore, Apple will stick with their current customers and will only gradually convert some of the PC users.

Does that mean there is no hope?

To the contrary.
Apple is already making some smart moves, locking in the new customers. We have seen substantial price decreases for all Macs, reducing the entry barrier for new customers. Once an Apple customer, you'll be very unlikely to switch back again, for all the reasons we know. To ensure this, Apple is further developing customer locking-in and upgradable concepts like iLife, iSync, .Mac and soon a new Music download service, making it less and less likely that a customer will ever leave the Mac-heaven.
Also, by developing cross-OS products like the iPod and flawless integration with the most important Windows software like internet browsing, office-applications and multimedia programs, the interoperability concerns of the new customers are addressed.
That leaves Apple with the need to upgrade its Marketing and Sales strategies: realize physical availability of Macs in stores, ensure availability of (gaming) software, co-operate fully with banking/fiscal solutions currently solely offered to PC users and stop excluding international (Non-US) users from online services like Sherlock and iPhoto printing.

Put all above in a smart, multi-channel switch campaign and start behaving a bit more like MS and many more of us will be in Apple-heaven soon.

Just my two cents


----------



## usmkehnc (Mar 6, 2003)

martijnvandijk,
Very well put.


----------



## Androo (Mar 6, 2003)

Mac are just too easy to use. They've got no problems at all. Whenever my friend mentions that whenever he starts up starcraft, there's a blue screen, and i say that it won't ever happen with mac, he says that they suck. PCs are harder to use, so i guess people just want a challenge.


----------



## Sirtovin (Mar 6, 2003)

We could all go on on on... about this situation... My reason for switching was... because I know that if I want to become a full fledged webmaster... The Mac is the best for graphics... I don't give a poop.... About PC Video Cards... I care about my programs opening up and getting the job done effortlessly... Sometimes with a PC, graphic programs lock up... 

I don't need that.


----------



## edX (Mar 7, 2003)

> _a respnse to martijnvandijk _
> There's actually 3 kinds of computer users:
> 
> 1 - Ignorant, non-savvy people



i think this group needs to be divided into 2 different groups. those who are ignorant about computers and those who are ignorant about using computers. the first group is largely attracted to the pc simply because that's what they think a computer is. and when they look at the system requirements on the software box at Best Buys, it says they need windows and a pentium. they probably best illustrate your point that their are no pc and mac users - just computer users. however, those who could afford it would be much happier using a mac. 

the latter group, who have the intelligence and resources to find out about computers before they rush out to Fry's and buy today's $199 internet ready pc (yes, that was really an ad i heard today),probably stand a good chance of buying a mac. these people will have read consumer reports, played with different models in the store, etc. a big thing to them is how long will it take them to set up and being using their computer. they don't want to study manuals, configure drivers, or really spend any time with their computer other than doing what they need to do with it. The mac has always been made for these people. they make up the huge majority of mac owners. i am pretty much one of them.



> 2 - Experienced, non-freaky users...



well actually, i was one of the earlier types when i first bought my mac. now i am probably more at this level. except i generally wave my freak flag high. but then, i never made the mainstream decision to start with. but out side of mac users, your description probably fits most people who started out with a pc after a few years of using it. to have gotten this far, they have had to invest huge amounts of time and effort and as you point out - money. they might be good candidates for switching once they find out they can still read their idiot bosses' word documents on a mac.

on the other hand mac users who have advanced to this stage would be evenmore impossible to switch. they wouldn't go thru the grief they see their pc using friends go thru without some hefty monetary compensation in return. 



> 3 - Techy, freaky, very advanced customers (like all of us here?), knowing exactly what they want. ... Not the part of the market Apple should be trying to address, as it is almost saturated.



here i completely disagree. it's for sure that we're not all ultra geeks, or even geeks for that matter. many of us here bought our macs back at level one with the whole intention of avoiding having to be like this to use and maintain our computers. however, there are a lot of 'nix converts to macs that fit this description exactly. but they didn't really know this was what they wanted till they saw it. 'nix converts are largely word of mouth. apple isn't running ads that promote the complexity that underlies the simplicity of os x. i would never have had the opportunity to know many of the people here  3-5 years ago because they were still entering command lines on their pc or sgi and wouldn't dare strike up a conversation with a mac user. but times change and we have melded to become a much larger community of freaks and freethinkers with a common bond - os x. this is a whole new market for apple and one that is ripe with opportunities. 

in reality, i think what you have presented is more a developmental stage theory than different types of computer users. not everyone goes thru all the stages. everyone stops at the level they feel comfortable with. i think stages 2 and 3 are the best targets for apple to market to and it seems to me they agree. Then those stage 1 people will follow. or maybe not. just as well. i'd just as soon not listen to anymore whining about how the mac section doesn't have all those $10 apps that the pc section does.


----------



## Gimpy00Wang (May 14, 2003)

The vibe I get often is that you can get a PC much cheaper than a Mac typically. Especially if you build it yourself. I've been building my own PC's since my Pentium 66.  The only PC I ever purchased complete was my Inspiron 8200 from Dell. Of course, I only had that 6 months before it went on eBay and I got myself a PowerBook 12"!

I think it's also partially what you start out with. If you put a child in front of a FreeBSD box when they are very young and keep leaning them towards that until they are an adult, they will most likely keep with it since they are used to and familiar with it. Same goes for many things. So, since PC's are so widely used, people starting out on a computer are more likely to start out on a PC. 

- G!mpy


----------



## georgelien (Oct 4, 2003)

It all comes down to education.

Just like most Americans can only speak English, and are too lazy to learn another language, most computer users are stuck with Windows.

How do we change this?  Buy new Macs for our youths.  Educate them about the Mac OS and the power of Unix.  I, for one, plan to buy my nephew an iBook when he turns 10 in 2005.

What do you think?


----------



## Mat (Oct 4, 2003)

> Why don't PC users buy Macintosh?



Because they're jerks!

And if they did what your thread title suggests there would be about 1 billion people using 1 mac.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Oct 5, 2003)

georgelien..

American's aren't lazy when it comes to foreign language. I don't think i should be expected to speak spanish, japanese, german, french in my own country. 

If i wanted that I would take a bilingual course.

Just because the rest of the world is fluent doesn't mean they have to come to America and expect us to know their language by heart. I wouldn't go to their country and expect them to speak English.

to everyone else:

I'm suprised this thread is still around.


----------

