To mac or not to mac

Richie-from-the-Boro

Turning into the usual saga this thread .. .. .. no surprise there then. The O/P came here looking for magic bullets that he could use to persuade his wife / family / himself / that he should pay through the nose for the poser value.

A pointless exercise, if he wants one he will justify it one way or the other.

redcard

Linux probably has a 5% market share as well.

Why does Windows have such a big market share? Because people dont know they have a choice, so they just go lowest common denominator.

People that don't think buy Windows, people that think buy Mac, people that think too much go for Linux.

If price is your determining factor you don't go for Mac; everyone accepts that. But not everyone shops in the bargain bucket all the time. Some people have more disposable income than others. Doesn't mean they're stupid.

spud17

Some people have more disposable income than others. Doesn't mean they're stupid.

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.

12bdebt3

23n1th wrote: »

Also apple have not overtaken microsoft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10174292

Yep, they have.

Also me remove your signature, I don't want to be in it and/or associated with you in any way.

Richie-from-the-Boro

arrontdep wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10174292

Yep, they have.

Also me remove your signature, I don't want to be in it and/or associated with you in any way.

C'mon arrontdep, the debate is about computer operating systems / costs..

Pads / phones / and pods are not computers and Microsoft don't make computers anyway. Your answer opens a different discussion completely, totally at a tangent to the Mac / PC debate.

I'm one that's pleased to see Apple regain its 1989 position, maybe Microsoft will become more genuine when it looks at customer demands.

A more interesting question is "" is a Mac O/S [ really ] a Mac O/S ? "

[Deleted User]

redcard wrote: »

People that don't think buy Windows, people that think buy Mac, people that think too much go for Linux.

People that are unable to think for themselves end up believing the hokum about Apple computers then continually bleat on about them when it's quite obvious they haven't got a clue about anything other than the sales speak. Not a group of people I'd consider to give good advice.

23n1th

redcard wrote: »

Linux probably has a 5% market share as well.

Why does Windows have such a big market share? Because people dont know they have a choice, so they just go lowest common denominator.

People that don't think buy Windows, people that think buy Mac, people that think too much go for Linux.

If price is your determining factor you don't go for Mac; everyone accepts that. But not everyone shops in the bargain bucket all the time. Some people have more disposable income than others. Doesn't mean they're stupid.

While statistics can meaning anything this site I've found quite useful this is from the last month on OS market share: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qptimeframe=M

Windows has the bigger market share due to apple being too expensive, ever since it was first in business, no one really being able to buy a new computer without windows on it and PCs being a more flexible solution.

I can afford apple I choose not to waste my money though. I don't buy the hype and I don't like to be dictated to by a company telling me what I can and can't do.

arrontdep wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10174292

Yep, they have.

Also me remove your signature, I don't want to be in it and/or associated with you in any way.

arrontdep wrote: »

If I remember rightly Macs annual revenue overtook Microsoft's not so long ago. ...

You'll understand the confusion then when you're talking about overall company worth, rather than just a products overall worth which is what you actually posted.

Also more relevant is that they aren't direct competitors microsoft behind a software vendor, apple being a hardware vendor. And I think the over-priced hardware as I've mentioned is the reason why its worth more.

Apple wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Microsoft.

John_Pierpoint

23n1th wrote: »

Apple wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Microsoft.

Apple wouldn't be here if it was not for the USA government's pressures on Microsoft to try and stamp out restrictive practices (Microsoft had to keep alive at least one competitor).

I also thought that Windows 95 was "influenced" by MAC 87?

I blame Hewlett Packard for being too focussed on the HP3000 to realise that one-per-desk had arrived.

12bdebt3

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

C'mon arrontdep, the debate is about computer operating systems / costs..

Pads / phones / and pods are not computers and Microsoft don't make computers anyway. Your answer opens a different discussion completely, totally at a tangent to the Mac / PC debate.

I'm one that's pleased to see Apple regain its 1989 position, maybe Microsoft will become more genuine when it looks at customer demands.

A more interesting question is "" is a Mac O/S [ really ] a Mac O/S ? "

It doesn't matter what the debate is about, I was using the information to back my point up not my fault a discussion came of it.

iPads, iPhones and iPods all run an operating system and theoretically are computers.

12bdebt3

23n1th wrote: »

Apple wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Microsoft.

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.