Rant about Apple - What to da about next computer

asininity

If thats at me I love going into the mac store and getting the hard sell from the guys that work there and everything they say I need a mac for I can come up with something that does just the same on the pc, what do you get then... "well a mac looks better".

wolfman

Leopard wrote: »

Which, usefully, leads me into the rebuttal of your first point.

Jobs could well have afforded $150m personally, to rescue Apple.

But he realised that to do so, at least at that stage, he needed to get Microsoft to commit to continuing to produce a Mac version of Office.

By persuading Microsoft to invest $150m in Apple, Jobs created a situation in which Microsoft would then be shooting itself in the foot if it stopped making Office available for the Mac.

From what I can remember it wasn't quite like that. And it's certainly not that black and white. Part of it revolved around Quicktime code being used by Intel and Microsoft and a 3rd party. Some sort of agreement was made.

Either way, Microsoft invested in Apple stocks too, and made money from it. Office for the Mac has also been very profitable for them too.

The deal favoured both sides and helped ensure the future of Apple although at the time they had plenty of money anyway. Jobs certainly didn't need to front $150m!

wolfman

PS - I thought Microsoft did still make Office for Mac. Office 2008?

Edit - ignore me, misread your post

adouglasmhor

Idiophreak wrote: »

From what I've read, LT just wants to have fun

It's a quote from the man himself he may not have been serious

Leopard

Wolfman,

There are some for whom the dependability of their computer is their paramount consideration.

If, for example, you were to find yourself sitting in the back of a motorhome in the Formula One paddock at a foreign motor racing circuit, needing to re-write the clauses in a contract, prepare a report and write a press release, all to a tight deadline, you need to be able to count on the fact that when you boot your laptop the thing will fire up and run.

You would not be best pleased if to get it to do so you had to send a plea of help to the Techie section of MSE back in England, along with a couple of hundred lines of computer code, and wait for a reply.

If, moreover, your laptop suffered an accident and was damaged, it would be essential to be able to boot another computer, immediately, from a pocketable Firewire drive containing your own, configured system and backups of your data.

Those are the type of "lifestyle" considerations that affect what I buy, myself. It's irrelevant to me whether the thing is admired by anybody else but it's pleasing to me aesthetically if it also happens to be cosmetically attractive.

As to cost, money saving is about long-term expense, not upfront price. And on that score Apple delivers too. I happen to be writing this on an eight year old Cube that I upgraded (admittedly quite substantially) more than 5 and a half years ago. It is happily running the most up-to-date version of Apple's operating system and running it sprucely, too.

So is the six year old, wirelessly networked and synched, Apple laptop which I've just used to reply to an email while downstairs making a cup of coffee.

I wonder how many people using this this site are doing so on an eight year old PC that never misses a beat, has never had a virus and is running the latest version of Windows on a 23" HD widescreen monitor?

The short-sighted buy computers at the cheapest prices; but how long do they endure, for how long can they cut the mustard and how often do they fail to work because of problems with their operating system?

What geeks fail totally to grasp is that most other people don't want to spend their time tinkering with their computer nor playing games with a plastic box. They want a computer that just works properly, so that they can use it to do things with.

As for your personal abuse, if, to you, I do "come across as a stereo typical know-it-all (sic)" I can at least console myself with the fact that I know-it-all how to spell stereotypical.

You really shouldn't accuse people of being things you can't spell; it loses you the credibility and the authority necessary to level the charge.


Asinity,

When you're playing games in Apple shops by preventing people with serious things to do from getting access to the staff, what do you tell them does the same things on a PC as iLife, Time machine and MobileMe. And what do you use to run Aperture on a PC? Just curious.


MikeGahan,

mikegahan wrote: »

Not being either a Machead or a Windows lover I see the benefits of both. If Windows did not exist how many of us could afford an Apple?

Could you expand upon your argument that Windows is keeping down the price of an Apple?


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Added Later.


Wolfman,

HERE's the full explanation by Steve Jobs of the 1997 Apple-Microsoft deal. It's interesting to watch with hindsight.


And I also came across THIS, from 1984, which those with a fondness for Macs might appreciate.

asininity

Its Asininity. I don't just bug apple stores I do PCworld as well.

I take it by ilife you mean: iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and iWeb. Are you talking of a suite of apps or individual apps? Individual apps are easy as a suite maybe not but not being part of a suite isn't a disadvantage.

Most ISPs now offer things similar to MobileMe and you don't have to pay extra for them as they're included in the price of your broadband subscription.

Aperture alternatives are things like blueMarine if you want free opensource software however not being a professional photographer I'm not much interested in power apps like these I suppose Adobes Lightroom does the same job for a paid for software.

What it comes down to is affordablity, macs are over priced simple. If I needed a mac I'd save up and buy one but since I can do what I need to do on a PC where all I'm paying for is the hardware (which means an average saving of a grand compared to the mac) I don't see the point.

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

I take it by ilife you mean: iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and iWeb. Are you talking of a suite of apps or individual apps? Individual apps are easy as a suite maybe not but not being part of a suite isn't a disadvantage.

I think being part of an integrated suite of applications certainly has its advantages. If I make a slideshow in iPhoto, all my iTunes music is there ready to be used in it. If I record a piece of music in Garageband and want to use it in a video, it's there in iMovie, and so on.

Most ISPs now offer things similar to MobileMe and you don't have to pay extra for them as they're included in the price of your broadband subscription.

I think MobileMe is Windows compatible isn't it?

What it comes down to is affordablity, macs are over priced simple. If I needed a mac I'd save up and buy one but since I can do what I need to do on a PC where all I'm paying for is the hardware (which means an average saving of a grand compared to the mac) I don't see the point.

They're more expensive than the "average" PC, but I wouldn't say they're overpriced.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer it if they were cheaper though.

asininity

MartyJ,

I'll agree it has its advantages but its not like its saving you hours of work. I don't know if MobileMe is available for windows I would never consider using it.

I'd say a lot more expensive than a pc capable of doing the same stuff / of the same spec.

And another gripe, whats all this iStuff, iThis and iThat. I think the "i" stands for a double barrel incredibly-expensive.

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

I'll agree it has its advantages but its not like its saving you hours of work.

True, but it's nice to feel that technology is working for you rather than against you.

I'd say a lot more expensive than a pc capable of doing the same stuff / of the same spec.

Well, I think that's certainly debatable. PCs can't run OS X for starters. Or rather they can, but in a cobbled together half-assed way. So until someone who is not Apple makes a PC that runs OS X and it integrates totally with the hardware it's running on, no PC is truly of the same spec.

Now, I know some will say that Windows or Linux can do whatever OS X can do, and this is in a broad sense true. It all comes down to personal preference in the end, and I happen to prefer OS X so it doesn't bother me to pay a bit more to be able to run it. And considering Mac Minis start from £399, it's not really that much more. I just chose a more expensive iMac because I liked the design and it was more powerful.

And another gripe, whats all this iStuff, iThis and iThat. I think the "i" stands for a double barrel incredibly-expensive.

It has been around since before Apple started doing it, but they were the ones to popularise it. It started with the iMac, in which the i stood for "internet" I think.

asininity

I'd prefer to use OS X to windows any day but I'm priced out thats one of the reasons I keep going back to the shop. Sure I'm a little bitter about being priced out but then I'm entitled to be, its a combination of rubbish windows security/features and (for me) over priced units from apple that make me a linux user.

True integration with the hardware is a great feature, certain distros of linux do this extremely well, but so is the flexibility of being able to run on any hardware which windows can do though I'd say for not cutting edge hardware linux does better.