Didou said:There's nothing in it for Apple at all. They make the most margins on their hardware & are very good convincing people to buy it with the aesthetics & because the software "just works". They won't have any of that if they simply allow MacOSX to run on any PC.
That's what you don't get, they don't need/have-to compete. Apple as a company simply has to be profitable & it is doing very well, there isn't a single benefit in releasing MacOSX to be used on any PC.jonmcc33 said:That's not enough to compete.
Didou said:That's what you don't get, they don't need/have-to compete. Apple as a company simply has to be profitable & it is doing very well, there isn't a single benefit in releasing MacOSX to be used on any PC.
Didou said:& I for one do not see them making that step unless someone quite clueless takes over the controls of the company. The OS works very well because it looks good (but so does Vista), because the software is complete & polished but most importantly because of the relatively compact & well known hardware ecosystem it is meant to run on.
Take that away & you simply have a different OS than Windows & people don't change their habits just for something different, there has to be a benefit to the change.
Didou said:You must've missed the part where I said that there has to be a benefit. Going from PowerPC to Intel has brought so many advantages from performance, thermals & part availability that I wouldn't know where to start.
Didou said:I believe those ads are probably meant to attract new users rather than current Windows users. The previous "Switch" ads were there to entice users to migrate to MacOSX, I don't think that's the case here.
What's encouraging people to migrate is the "ease of use" that's been lost when going from XP to Vista. Even with a good machine where Vista is fast enough, it doesn't change the fact that menus have been rewritten in non logical ways, settings are found in non intuitive areas & you simply need more clicks to do things that required less in XP.
It took me a while to figure out how to simply share files from the Vista machine. I'm still looking for how a way to hide the widget sidebar until I put the mouse cursor on the left. I have quite a few more problems about simple things that should've been simple to do in Vista but aren't & I've been using Windows for a while now (maybe that's the problem).jonmcc33 said:Not sure what "easy of use" is lost going to Vista. I sure learned it rather quickly. Only slight differences but it honestly isn't as severe as someone going from Windows to Mac.
Well Time Machine "just works" (& is included on every Leopard install). Shadow copy is more complicated to get working for someone discovering computers & furthermore is only available on certain editions of Windows Vista (Home doesn't have it).I still like that ad for Mac's hourly backup thing. Unsure if Mac was aware of Shadow Copy in Vista. They also attack UAC but fail to point out that it protects against spyware/malware. Just funny sometimes.
Didou said:It took me a while to figure out how to simply share files from the Vista machine. I'm still looking for how a way to hide the widget sidebar until I put the mouse cursor on the left. I have quite a few more problems about simple things that should've been simple to do in Vista but aren't & I've been using Windows for a while now (maybe that's the problem).
Didou said:Well Time Machine "just works" (& is included on every Leopard install). Shadow copy is more complicated to get working for someone discovering computers & furthermore is only available on certain editions of Windows Vista (Home doesn't have it).
ps. maybe we should stop steering this topic away from the original post.
SNGX1275 said:jonmcc33 - Its clear you won't switch to OS X unless (and even then probably not) it is released natively for traditional Windows boxes, thats fine, but the debate on why you think Vista is just as good doesn't need to continue here, in another thread fine.
Back on topic - I tried a few times to get it to work on a Pentium D system with repeated failures. I've since gotten rid of that system (had too many PCs anyway) and am considering trying it on a C2D E4400 system. Hopefully that goes a little better.
The last time I checked (which was probably about two weeks ago), they were charging about $200 for a 2GB module meant for late-model Macbook Pros. Yes, still a substantial markup, but just wanted to clear that up.They offer a Macbook with 1GB DDR2-667 and for an upgrade to 4GB DDR2-667 they charge $850.
You answered the argument to this yourself.jonmcc33 said:Apple will gain quite a bit from selling a universal OS as opposed to their computer line.
Apple's main selling points are its OS and the 'Apple experience'. As long as Mac OS remains a compelling product, people will buy their expensive hardware because they are locked in. If they offered OS X for non-Apple PCs, eventually people would be running OS X on cheap PCs. Not ONLY would that would cut into Apple's hardware profits, but it would chew up OS X's polish and shine because some things work on Mac OS only because its on an Apple platform.jonmcc33 said:"I completely agree with you but then it would hurt Mac's hardware sales."
jobeard said:Didou:
They will never get it -- give up.
PC people are not Mac people and conversely. They work, think, and act differently.
I've had both since '89 and watched the parade for decades now -- it's been very interesting.
I've preached "it just works" forever and to whoever will listen.
I'll refrain from doing so here as T.S. is clearly biased toward PCs --
let's just agree to disagree on the theological nature of Macs vs. PCs
Rick said:The last time I checked (which was probably about two weeks ago), they were charging about $200 for a 2GB module meant for late-model Macbook Pros. Yes, still a substantial markup, but just wanted to clear that up.
Rick said:Also, have you looked at PC vendor prices? I just recently had a client tell me he wanted to upgrade his harddrive (Lenovo 12"). He found a 100GB drive on Lenovo's website for nearly $250. I told him that would be crazy, bought him a 160GB drive AND installed it for nearly half that. So this isn't just Apple... Your argument that Apple is price gouging implies that other manufacturers don't, which is misleadingly false... although that certainly doesn't change the fact that they are expensive.
Rick said:You answered the argument to this yourself. Apple's main selling points are its OS and the 'Apple experience'. As long as Mac OS remains a compelling product, people will buy their expensive hardware because they are locked in. If they offered OS X for non-Apple PCs, eventually people would be running OS X on cheap PCs. Not ONLY would that would cut into Apple's hardware profits, but it would chew up OS X's polish and shine because some things work on Mac OS only because its on an Apple platform.
Rick said:You don't seem to (Well, I think you refuse to) understand it. Apple isn't just another regular computer vendor like HP and Dell. They want to control your experience from top to bottom, service to parts. People choose Apple - not only because it is chic and trendy - but they want that experience. This is worth money to some people...
Rick said:Yeah, I'm a PC person myself. I don't like being 'locked in' and certainly like paying 'too much' for stuff. But there are reasons to all of the recent Apple phenomena, as much as you don't want to believe.
Firstly, the 'vendor' hard drive example is a counter example to your '$850 4GB DDR2' upgrade... Not some sort of Lenovo-represents-the-PC-Market vs Apple comparison... Because both you and I know you can use standard PC memory. So your counter point is irrelevant.jonmcc33 said:I'm comparing Apple to the PC, not Apple to PC OEMs (vendors). You cannot put a Mac together piece by piece like you can a PC. So you MUST purchase a Mac as a whole.
jonmcc33 said:Oh no! It wouldn't matter if they ran OS X on cheap PCs because Apple would at least profit from the purchase of the license for the OS. Instead they get NOTHING because Windows owns 93% of the market.
Then what ARE you comparing? DIY PCs? Again, you haven't mentioned this angle before, why now? Your argument has been Apples are expensive and Apple charges too much for their stuff. If you want to compare things in a way that makes sense, you need to compare PC vendors to Apple. If you want to talk about DIY PCs, then you need to come out and say it.jonmcc33 said:You keep bringing up PC vendors. I'm not comparing against those.
Yes, Intel is a huge reason, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple has doubled its market share since the switch... And it is still increasing. Whatever they are doing seems to be doing OK.jonmcc33 said:Recent Apple "phenomena"? If there has been any peak in interest it's because Apple switched to x86 technology when they grew a brain.
... Yeah, just like 2000 and XP. And again, and again (since I feel it is necessary to repeat it to you) it is about the 'Apple experience'. The fact you can use Time Machine to backup to an external drive and boot from it by holding down the Option key without any special modifications, is part of that experience... And again, that is why Apple has a "closed system" way of doing things. And like Didou tried to get across to you, Backup and Restore in Home Edition is a stripped down version that doesn't do a complete backup.jonmcc33 said:Unsure if Mac was aware of Shadow Copy in Vista.
It's been off tangent for awhile. lol. But thanks for the heads up.jonmcc33 said:You're really going off on a tangent here, you know that right?