Boyko
Mad Scientist
The big barrier in Macs is the price range. If people are looking for a low-end computer, the $900 imac Indigo isn't going to make people change thier minds. It's too slow.
But for people who are purchasing a computer at the mid-or-top computers, especially for those people who have been "computer law savvy," the Macs are a popular alternative.
Forget games. My sister purchased (albiet without monitor) a new PC system for $800 with word processor software, ethernet & modem, sound & video, DVD-Rom & CD-RW drive. The low end Imac doesn't have either a DVD-Rom or a CD-RW drive (at least I think that's the case)
And let's face it, it does what she wants it to do. She's also familiar with the interface.
There's also the pcs-for-games argument. For single player games, PS2 is certainly a standard, but PCs have a decided advantage in MMORPGs, and Multi-player FPS. Until the Internet Console is a reality - (and I doubt it will be this year or the next) PCs do have an advantage to the gamer.
I personally chose Macs because OSX is more stable than a similar NT system. I chose Macs because it doesn't require "activation". I chose macs because I wouldn't need to upgrade the hardware all the time, and I chose Macs because, quite frankly, I needed a machine for productivity, not for games.
For some people, PCs are the better choice... just not me. Remember, OSX competes against Microsoft, and Apple Hardware competes against computer manufacturers such as Dell. PC manufacturers *do* have an advantage in producing low-end systems, and Apple won't get more market share until it can successfully tap the "low-end" market - these are the people that are *not* computer geeks. These are the grandmothers. These are the little kids. These are also the middle aged middle management middleman. This is the housewife. This is the teenager who wants to write his reports in word, do research on the net, and play Quake and AIM people.
The iMac is a good *start* but in order to really attract the marketshare, Apple needs to continue to market to Joe Dirt, not Jacques Art.
Brian.
But for people who are purchasing a computer at the mid-or-top computers, especially for those people who have been "computer law savvy," the Macs are a popular alternative.
Forget games. My sister purchased (albiet without monitor) a new PC system for $800 with word processor software, ethernet & modem, sound & video, DVD-Rom & CD-RW drive. The low end Imac doesn't have either a DVD-Rom or a CD-RW drive (at least I think that's the case)
And let's face it, it does what she wants it to do. She's also familiar with the interface.
There's also the pcs-for-games argument. For single player games, PS2 is certainly a standard, but PCs have a decided advantage in MMORPGs, and Multi-player FPS. Until the Internet Console is a reality - (and I doubt it will be this year or the next) PCs do have an advantage to the gamer.
I personally chose Macs because OSX is more stable than a similar NT system. I chose Macs because it doesn't require "activation". I chose macs because I wouldn't need to upgrade the hardware all the time, and I chose Macs because, quite frankly, I needed a machine for productivity, not for games.
For some people, PCs are the better choice... just not me. Remember, OSX competes against Microsoft, and Apple Hardware competes against computer manufacturers such as Dell. PC manufacturers *do* have an advantage in producing low-end systems, and Apple won't get more market share until it can successfully tap the "low-end" market - these are the people that are *not* computer geeks. These are the grandmothers. These are the little kids. These are also the middle aged middle management middleman. This is the housewife. This is the teenager who wants to write his reports in word, do research on the net, and play Quake and AIM people.
The iMac is a good *start* but in order to really attract the marketshare, Apple needs to continue to market to Joe Dirt, not Jacques Art.
Brian.
