To mac or not to mac

DatabaseError

arrontdep wrote: »

That's a bit presumptuous. Red wouldn't be here if it wasn't for blue, clouds wouldn't be here if it wasn't for water. Let's be serious; it doesn't matter if Microsoft existed before Apple and created computers before Apple, at the end of the day they are both a company within their own rights.

I suspect you're missing a point, in 1997 apple was on the verge of laying off staff, and on the edge of collapse, with huge losses. Confidence was restored in the company with a $150,000,000 investment by microsoft. So it could, truly, be said that without microsoft apple would no longer be here.
"...at the August MacWorld Expo, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs stunned the masses by accepting a $150 million bailout from Microsoft. Apple executives claimed it was the only way to save the beleaguered company. "
Undoubtedly microsoft need apple to succeed, without them to point to as a valid competitor' the anti-trust lobbies would have won a long time ago and microsoft would have been broken up. Apple only exists as a computer company because microsoft needs it to, I suspect if the 'gloves were off' ms could drop the mac platform for msoffice and any other software it publishes on it, remove hardware support for macs preventing installation of vista/7/8 on the hardware, and even deny the access to windows APIs to developers also working on mac software, it would hurt microsoft in the short term, but it would leave macintosh owners on an ever shrinking island.
Obviously this isn't gonna happen, because we all know the "mac vs pc" debate is never gonna end, both platforms have their place, both are essential for the market, both have their fanbois who don't care about the arguments for the other platform, the winners are the shareholders of ms and apple.

23n1th

arrontdep wrote: »

That's a bit presumptuous. Red wouldn't be here if it wasn't for blue, clouds wouldn't be here if it wasn't for water. Let's be serious; it doesn't matter if Microsoft existed before Apple and created computers before Apple, at the end of the day they are both a company within their own rights.

What he said (below).

DatabaseError wrote: »

I suspect you're missing a point, in 1997 apple was on the verge of laying off staff, and on the edge of collapse, with huge losses. Confidence was restored in the company with a $150,000,000 investment by microsoft. So it could, truly, be said that without microsoft apple would no longer be here.
"...at the August MacWorld Expo, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs stunned the masses by accepting a $150 million bailout from Microsoft. Apple executives claimed it was the only way to save the beleaguered company. "
Undoubtedly microsoft need apple to succeed, without them to point to as a valid competitor' the anti-trust lobbies would have won a long time ago and microsoft would have been broken up. Apple only exists as a computer company because microsoft needs it to, I suspect if the 'gloves were off' ms could drop the mac platform for msoffice and any other software it publishes on it, remove hardware support for macs preventing installation of vista/7/8 on the hardware, and even deny the access to windows APIs to developers also working on mac software, it would hurt microsoft in the short term, but it would leave macintosh owners on an ever shrinking island.
Obviously this isn't gonna happen, because we all know the "mac vs pc" debate is never gonna end, both platforms have their place, both are essential for the market, both have their fanbois who don't care about the arguments for the other platform, the winners are the shareholders of ms and apple.

redcard

spud17 wrote: »

But it does if they spend way more than is required.

I, along with others here could afford a Mac but don't see the need to spend over the odds for a brand name.

So I take it you spend the absolute minimum on everything you buy?
You don't ever go to a bar that charges £5 a pint?
You don't go to a fancy restaurant, drink expensive wine?
You don't have a sky subscription?
You don't buy Kellogs instead of own brand?
You dont have an HD TV?

Sure, you will probably die rich, but is there any point in that?

23n1th

Redcard I don't pay more than I need to for what I want to do.

I take it from you're post you only go to petrol stations that sell the most expensive petrol? Personally petrol is petrol to me so I go for the cheapest.

I have no need to buy a mac because it can't do anything more than my much cheaper PC, if fact it does less.

spud17

redcard wrote: »

So I take it you spend the absolute minimum on everything you buy? No
You don't ever go to a bar that charges [STRIKE]£5[/STRIKE] £3 a pint? No
You don't go to a fancy restaurant, drink expensive wine? No
You don't have a sky subscription? Or even a Sky subscription
You don't buy Kellogs instead of own brand? No
You dont have an HD TV? 16 year old Sony

Sure, you will probably die rich, but is there any point in that?

Prefer to have paid off my mortgage in under 20 yrs, despite working in a low income industry for most of my life.

redcard

23n1th wrote: »

Redcard I don't pay more than I need to for what I want to do.

I take it from you're post you only go to petrol stations that sell the most expensive petrol? Personally petrol is petrol to me so I go for the cheapest.

I have no need to buy a mac because it can't do anything more than my much cheaper PC, if fact it does less.

I didn't pick the cheapest computer, I picked the best one within my means.

This is MSE after all, it's cool to say you don't spend money. But like the fat chick in the office who is on a perpetual diet; she binges when nobody is looking.

Remember all Macs can run Windows, so it actually does more than your PC.

redcard

spud17 wrote: »

Prefer to have paid off my mortgage in under 20 yrs, despite working in a low income industry for most of my life.

Macs seem to be keeping their value better than most homes, so I think my Mac was probably the better investment!

[Deleted User]

redcard wrote: »

Macs seem to be keeping their value better than most homes, so I think my Mac was probably the better investment!

I'd rather be paying a mortgage off than lining the pockets of a landlord or SJ. At least you've got something worthwhile to show for it.

23n1th

redcard wrote: »

I didn't pick the cheapest computer, I picked the best one within my means.

I didn't pick the cheapest one either however it still does what a mac can do and more at half the price.

This is MSE after all, it's cool to say you don't spend money. But like the fat chick in the office who is on a perpetual diet; she binges when nobody is looking.

I'm not actually sure what that means????

Remember all Macs can run Windows, so it actually does more than your PC.

You're a little confused here. You'll find it is rather Windows that can run on Macs. OSX is not that flexible so its Windows being able to do something OSX can't (that is run on other hardware).

Chimpofdoom

Man another mac vs PC argument.

Neither side can win this argument, so give up.

Some people like PC's, other's like Linux and other's like OSX.

I used to use windows, hated the bugs/viruses and sluggish-ness that a system would get.

Switched the Linux, loved the customisation, security and speed on old hardware, but hated the lack of programs..

So I switched to OSX.. can't get enough of it.

It comes down to personal preference what computer you will buy. Some will argue my mac can't do as much as a PC that costs x amount, but do I care? not really, if I wanted a PC to do a certain task, I would buy one to do it.