Macs soon to lose out to PC/Windows?

A good friend of mine is one of the most ardent Apple Mac fans and Microsoft haters there is. He works on one all day and has a G4 running OS X with the (gorgeous) widescreen flat panel at home. He's a web designer/developer for a large UK financial company. He takes his work home with him on his iPod (yes, they don't just store music). Me and him regularly have friendly Windows vs. Mac debates allthough they're nothing like as heated as these kinds of things can get on net forums :devil:

So, Microsoft wants this large financial company to be one of its main players with its new OS still being developed, code named "Longhorn" and bring the heavies over to do a technical demo etc. etc. Said friend reluctantly and very sceptically goes along to see what they've got to offer.

That was Wednesday - today, he's on a plane to Seattle to spend a week at Microsoft HQ As far as he's concerned now, Longhorn (or whatever it's called when released) will blow anything Apple have got clean out of the water :yikes: btw, no money, or promise of money has changed hands

I couldn't believe it - it's a transformation along the lines of George W. Bush becoming a muslim and joining Al Queda. He couldn't tell me what was so good about Longhorn because of NDAs but if it's convinced him then it must have been pretty impressive.

I'm a PC/Windows user but have always been a Mac fan. I really like them and their OS has been better than Windows for ages but with XP the gap got seriously small - will Longhorn be the end for Apple? I have to say, it didn't impress me the way Apple blatantly lied in claiming the new G5 was the fastest personal computer in the world. They cheated on the benchmarks and then only reported selectively. There was at least one Dell PC (running Windows) in the test which was overall considerably faster than a G5. It shows they're desperate. I hope they survive...we'll see.

Michael.

 

Mike you raise some interesting points.

Macintosh desperate? I don't think so. I accept that they have reluctently become a neiche market. And yes M$ Have had to help them out in the past.

But they do have a healthy balance sheet, and the innovative products they produce simply can't be argued.

I don't know what the specifics on what you say about their presentation on the G5 being a con, but lets be fair here, its going to be biased. I guessed that they probably loaded some of the info then quit the programme on the mac but not on the PC, so yes it loads faster, but I don't know.

What I do know is this, my mac has not had a system crash since March 2001, this for me is good news.

The product intergration with software and hardware I believe is essential in producing the full monty (admitadly naim man speaking here)

Apple has and continues to move the envelope on cutting edge computer design, and without them I doubt very much that microsoft would have made the efforts it has.

More over with out apple microsoft are in a very tenuous position in monopolies sense of things.

Something in side me says apple should have licesnsed there software when they had the chance. But looking at the dire efforts that come out from generic PC products I am pleased they did not.

The latest offering from Hewlet Packard, a desperate attempt at a fashionable computer is f**king awfull and cheap. I know this is not the last word in computing, but for me something that intergrates with my home life is essential and apple have that down to a tee, I don't see them going out of business soon.

 

I must admit I am not a fan of macs - had to use them at work to control instruments and they were a pain in the arse. However I do like competition, so it would be a shame to seen them disappear.

 

apple are the only company stopping microsoft from being a monopoly - hence the microsoft help in the past. so if they do get into serious trouble they'll find their coffers full again as it will be cheaper than a court case an monopoly fine by the US govt. also there are many people out there who are so rabidly ani m$ that they'll never go there even if they come up with a version of windows that's as fast as dos was and operates by you thinking about what you want.
cheers


julian

 

All points are absolutely correct. I'm a die-hard mac fan too though not a techie guy, but just a loyal user, but still, mac's popularity will depend on how the Apple guys would handle its loyalists and potential converts.

For a long time, price has been one area thay many people, including mac's fanatics, are complaining about macs, and apple seems to have paid not much attention to this until now, or I'm just missing something again here? There was a time when they've licensed other companies like Power Computing to manufacture mac clones which are more affordable to a wider market, and which really enjoyed additional followers to its flock. That is, until apple branded them like "leeches" because apple felt these companies are eating much of it's revenues and eventually cancelled their license. This is really sad.

Making the macs as affordable as a PC would really open the brand to a wider market and people will realize the real reason why Mac should rule.

regards

 

I'm primarily a PC guy, although I must say I am completely unbiased. And I would say this: Osama has a point here. If I could have had a Mac for the same price as an equivalently powered PC, then I probably would have had one, as I do like the idea of something different for home.

The other thing is though, is the lack of Mac software. Say what you like, but the fact is, PC software heavily outnumbers Mac software, mainly in the lower priced software sector, like shareware and such like. You cant run EAC on a Mac. You dont have the same choice of P2P programs. PC's blows the Mac away for game support, and overall, a PC that is more powerful costs half the price.

Until they get these sorted out, then they will struggle. And they are gonna struggle more, because IMO Windows XP is easily on a par with Mac OSX - forget the pretty interface for a minute, and look at the usability of the two systems, Windows is simply more usable and intuitive, simple as that. And until a Virus took out my system, Windows itself (XP) had not crashed for nigh on 2 years. Thats stable.

 

Or you could go down the Linux route - an abundance of software for FREE. A completely stable system that probably wouldn't crash if you paid it!

I'm no expert, but I like to dabble with new things now and then. I spent time getting it running on my laptop (ok, Linux doesn't install quite as easily as XP, but the effort is worth it) and the only reason I don't use it at the moment is because my modem isn't supported (bloody Winmodems) (Linux without a modem is like a car without wheels). But just think - the interface is completely customisable, you could probably clone OS X if you wanted, and every two or three years when there's a major update you don't have to pay for it, just download it. It has a long way to go in the ease of use stakes, but you never know, it could become a real M$ competitor!

 

Paul, until a virus took down your system?!?!

This is a crucial point to why I choose Mac, they have worked hard on the security of the mac, I have never had a virus, or passed on a PC virus to anyone.

Windows in its appauling bid to know everything about you has insured there are plenty of way for lesser beings to get their hacks in.

Regarding price. I went into PC world and John Lewis today because I was bored. The nicest looking PC I found was actually by sony in John Lewis, latest spec everything at £1600 for the unit alone, the screen was a further £800.

Sorry but macs are bang on in the market with price now. Unfortunatly people still equate only processor speed with value.

A bit like equating watts with power and quality, utter crap.

I chose macs, many years ago because they were simply more effective at getting work done, This was back in the old mac plus days. Today I do the same, but admit I havn't worked much with XP. But frankly guys you have to thank apple for XP, the incarnations prior to it were shite, all of them in terms of interface, usibillity and stability. The mac I have now on average has 11 apps open at any one time, this simply cannot be done on 98.

Another thing about the friendlyness of windows.

I wanted to print 20 documents, I thought the best way was to simply select the documents from the desktop then goto print.

The stupid peice of shite opened Word 15 times, before the whole thing crashed, how bloody stupid.

He He, ol only one point, but never the less.

The other reason I choose macs, is because frankly I have a nice home, the stereo looks nice the sofa is nice and so is the floor. There is not a PC currently avaiable that I have seen which looks good. And more over you people are using old old technology and today in PC world PCs still being sold with floppy drives! I couldn't get one image off my camera on that. Legacy hardware folks, face it.

 

Here's one of many links about the cheating on the G5 benchmarks:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html

Many valid points made above allthough to be fair Gary, the virus and security thing is a little unfair. If you were going to write a virus which OS would you target? Exactly. In that respect, Windows has been a victim of its own success allthough admittedly MS has been a bit lax about security in the past.

I've often been on the brink of buying a Mac but it simply didn't make sense for me. I'm a software developer who works with PCs and Windows (if my employer switched to using Macs I'd glady switch!).

As Linux has shown, PCs (as in, the hardware) can be extremely reliable and in fairness, Windows XP is (IME) extremely reliable. I've never had a crash since I've installed it and I used to have one on average about once a month with Windows 2000.

I don't like the way MS has bullied its way to the top with (usually) inferior software allthough they do get the software right in most cases by the 3rd version of anything. I don't like that they're a monopoly and like to use alternative products whenever it makes sense (like using the Mozilla Firebird browser which I glad to say p*sses all over IE). However, I have to work with them and I recognize all the stuff they've done that's very good. I'm certainly no MS hater.

I wonder when the next serious challenge to MS's dominance in the home market will emerge. Macs I think are confined to their niche forever and I don't see Linux making any serious impact in the home market so for the time being it's full steam ahead for MS and Windows...

Michael.

 

umm..

I think people are confusing a couple of points here...

The speed advantage of PCs over MACs is almost entirely down to the hardware. The majority of MAC users prefer them because of the OS.. (OS X - and all the other MAC OSs are based on UNIX)..and I think that was the point of the original post.

I have to admit to not knowing that much about Longhorn.. but I have seen one preview review on it.. and there didn't seem to be much more than user interface differences between it and XP. So I'm also more than a little surprised that Michaels friend was so convinced by it's superiority.

As for the Virus issue UNIX based OSs have always been inherently more secure than Windows based OSs. I know more than a few people that would never use a Windows OS for this reason alone. It would seem that most companies that require truely 100% stable platforms for their critical systems agree that UNIX based systems are also more stable.. (whilst in Telecoms I didn't see a single Intel/Windows platform offered for any available solution).... the number of times that the office systems (all Intel/Windows platforms).. have crashed/suffered performance hits that I have personally experienced would also seem to confirm this belief.

GTM

 

Gary, the virus was totally my fault as it happens, I certainly cant blame windows for me downloading "dodgy" software and me running it

As for Linux, well I have tried it at several points down the line, and I always came to the conclusion that its utter pants compared to Windows XP. Nowhere near as user friendly, and doesnt quite seem as stable either. Windows XP is very stable on good hardware. Thats not to say Linux is utter crap or anything, but compared to XP, its not a patch on that. As for the comment that Linux is more secure, would that still be the case if it had a 90% worldwide market share? I think we all know the answer to that one - Windows is more vunerable simply because that is what everyone uses, and so writers of viruses target Windows because they know they will cause maximum devastation that way. Targetting Linux isnt going to make a virus headline news is it...

As for Mac's being up to speed with PC's, they are not (well not the last time I checked). Apple compare the processors running benchmark tests specifically optimised for their processors, and compare it to the same benchmark not optimised for the x86 architecture. They blatantly lie when they say that their 800MHz G4 or whatever is twice as fast as a 2.4GHz Pentium 4. Its so not true as to be ridiculous. Usually they come with about half as much memory, and half as much disk space as the equivalent PC. I have compared (not benchmarks, real world use) new PC's and Mac's a little while ago, and there was no way the Mac was faster than the PC. If anything it was the other way around, although neither was particularly sluggish. As for the argument that Macs looks better, well, you can get some bloody good looking PC's now (and I'm not just talking about black Dell computers). I have a brushed aluminium tower case that looks excellent, you can get very nice looking flat panel monitors and good keyboards and mouse. About the only thing the Apple really has over the PC is the elegant looks of its operating system.

Sure, Windows has faults, but so does any other operating system.

 

The number of people using windows has nothing to do with it's inherent vulnerability.. that is down to poor code pure and simple.. yes I agree that nearly all viruses are aimed at windows platforms because that way the virus has the largest impact on computer users. But quite simply UNIX implimentations just aren't as vulnerable as Windows platforms are, (essencially because they are the same OS as 20 years ago - and what holes there were have been plugged up a long time ago). Ask yourself this.. how many "critical security" patches have you downloaded for XP since you installed it? MS .. continue to bring out new OSs and release them before they have been fully tested and checked for flaws. How old is the NT kernel ? Why are there still security vulnerabilities? What kind of software development is it that releases an OS and then has to release an "application compatibility" patch to resolve issues with major software applications from major software developers such as Adobe etc??
I'm sorry but this is quite simply unacceptable from a company of the stature of Microsoft.

GTM

 

XP may be more user friendly, but definitely not more stable!!!

How many corporate networks (not the desktops, but the underlying network) run a Unix based system? The reasons for this are the stability and security. M$ has no chance of becoming dominant in the network arena due to lack of security. The only reason it continues to be used on most corporate desktops is that is what users are used to. They use Windows at home so will be familiar with it at work! My desktop runs NT4.0 at work (due to be upgraded to XP soon) and it crashes on a daily basis. I run very system heavy processes and Windows cannot cope and crashes the system. When using Linux, if a process ever crashes, it only crashes that application - nothing else is affected.

 

And thats the reason OSX is so stable, Unix through and through.

Mike you seem like Apple has done something personal against you! I think it must be fair to say any business or company promoting a new product will do anything to show it in a good light?

FWIW I have used a 2ghz PC and it was not fast at all. You can make the fastest processors on earth, they are still being banged into two year old off the shelf mother boards without the arcutectire to support it.

More over supporting such legacy crap as Serial (!) and floppy drives dosn't help either.

Mac were brave to ditch the floppy drive over 5 years ago, but I bet there is not a mac user on earth who misses this outdated form of file transfer. When will the PC crowd catch up?

 

Floppy drives still have their uses. Who the hell wants to write a CD just to put a Word document on it? Bootdisks are always handy things to have around also.

On a modern PC, I would not use boot floppies to install Windows, so PC users are already with it. I cant really see how having serial and floppy is going to be so detrimental to performance.

FWIW, I have a 1.53GHz PC which is VERY fast. Put a 2Ghz processor in a machine with insufficient memory and/or poor components, and of course it will feel slow. Use fast, up to date components, plenty of memory, and even a modestly powered CPU will make a PC feel very quick.

Modern motheboards do have the architecture to support fast processors. Even my "old" motherboard has a 333MHz FSB and can support up to an Athlon XP2600+ and up to 2Gb of RAM. Newer motherboards are more capable still.

I have got nothing against Apple, but to this day it still amazes me that its owners can be so zealous! You rarely hear PC owners bitching about Apple's but you always hear Apple owners bitching about PCs

 

A couple of years ago I had it up to hear with Pcs, they just crashed all the time and were unreliable.

Then XP came along which offered the reliability of Linux and the user freindlyness of Windows. My PC hasn't crashed once since getting XP.

I now have an Athlon 2000+ (1.66Ghz) and its very very quick and its also very affordable, the motherboard and CPU cost me £85 in total. It would probably cost me around £350-£400 to build from scratch using decent quality parts and it will be as fast as any apple costing twice the price. I think this the problem, PCs now offer almost everything the Mac does.


I have yet still to work out how Intel are still selling CPUs, I have build many many computers and the AMD ones are always the faster machines by far at a given price, and as for stabability well they are faultless with XP.

 

A couple of points:

I work for one of the top two (there are really only two ) Swiss investment banks and security is a huge issue for us. Large parts of the corporate network are running Windows with no more issues than the Unix parts of the network.

On the "application compatability" fixes. That's an unfair accusation GTM. These come about because of people like Adobe exploiting either, bugs in previous versions of Windows or undocumented features (which shouldn't be used) and then relying on them. In the case of someone like Adobe MS can't just turn around and say "sorry - you have to fix your software", they add a little hack to make it backwards compatible.

btw, I'm neither pro-PC nor anti-Mac. I like both a lot and, all other things being equal, would probably use a Mac if I had the choice. Unfortunately, all other things are never equal

Michael.

 

I hope you're right AT - 'cos I'm on the brink of upgrading. Will be getting a soundcard and modem to replace the POS HP combi card in my PC, and then I'll get XP. Once done, it's time to start writing tunes....

 

I used both Pcs - Dos based and Windows based - and Macs. For the common user there is precious little difference. Multimedia integration and desktop publishing used to be easier on the Macs, right now I'm not so sure.

I detest MS, its immoral strategies and I even don't like most of MS software: I am a WordPerfect user (!) and I hate the way Word corrupts your documents and makes writing a book a pain in the bottom (SunWriter is better, for that matter).

But there is not WP for the Macs, neither the programs I usually use (Statistica, mainly).

And Macs are so very expensive.

I usually build my computers from parts - which I could never do with Macs.

And yes, Windows XP *is* stable.

Mac didn't allow clones to be built whereas IBM was less effective in controlling that. This led to a massive Dos/Windows program development. Mac afterwrds recanted, but it was too late: IBM like machines had won the battle.

It used to come down to snobbery: trendy people used Macs, commoners used Pcs.

Perhaps that's still the difference?

 

It's about time Steve Jobs should learn the substance of what he said "been there, done that", in a different light. He should stop thinking that Mac would still set the standards, unless he makes them affordable first to a wider market.

I guess Apple might eventually change their original motto "for the rest of us" to "just for some of us"


regards