Macworld and The Philnote: A Second Look

[LTD]

<3 to Phil!!! If Steve cannot do keynotes, I am glad to have Phil as a back up :)

Yeah, he kind of grows on you after a bit. By all accounts an affable, enthusiastic and effective speaker.

He's no Steve, but I don't think he needs to be. He brings other good qualities to the table.

[MasterC]

Just giving credit where I think it's due. Again, I might think a bit differently from you. We're all entitled. It's all part of the ongoing discourse around here.

When I'm unhappy with Apple or dissatisfied, I'll let you all know.

And no, I'm not offended. You all assume "fanboy" is a pejorative term. I don't treat it as one.

Thanks for not taking what I said offensively. I never meant it that way. :yes: I agree with you that Apple deserves some credit, but not everything they do does. The MobileMe fiasco, forcing users to buy new computers just to run the current OS, etc. are things that definitely do not deserve credit.

[Mercellus]

Thanks for not taking what I said offensively. I never meant it that way. :yes: I agree with you that Apple deserves some credit, but not everything they do does. The MobileMe fiasco, forcing users to buy new computers just to run the current OS, etc. are things that definitely do not deserve credit.

They aren't forcing users to buy new computers to run the current operating system, there's still iBooks and PowerBooks out there that are running Mac OS X Leopard just fine. If you're talking about Snow Leopard dropping Power PC support, I think it's time that it happens... all Macintosh computers post 2006 are Intel-based, there's no point in supporting the legacy architecture forever.

[LTD]

The MobileMe fiasco, forcing users to buy new computers just to run the current OS, etc. are things that definitely do not deserve credit.

The MobileMe fiasco I agree with.

And I too think it's a bit early for Apple to be leaving PPC users out in the cold. I'm not really up in arms about it because I know that at some point they have to move on. But if I was a G5 owner right now I wouldn't be happy, especially that Leopard is going full 64-bit and here I have my 64-bit processor that won't give me the kind of mileage it's supposed to.

[MasterC]

They aren't forcing users to buy new computers to run the current operating system, there's still iBooks and PowerBooks out there that are running Mac OS X Leopard just fine. If you're talking about Snow Leopard dropping Power PC support, I think it's time that it happens... all Macintosh computers post 2006 are Intel-based, there's no point in supporting the legacy architecture forever.

Yes, I was referring to Snow Leopard. And just because the Intel Macs are a little over two years old doesn't mean it's a good idea to drop PPC support completely. Some people don't have the money to upgrade their computer, and buying the OS is the only option they have. Ignoring PPC users is ignorant on Apples part because they are another source of income.

The MobileMe fiasco I agree with.

And I too think it's a bit early for Apple to be leaving PPC users out in the cold. I'm not really up in arms about it because I know that at some point they have to move on. But if I was a G5 owner right now I wouldn't be happy, especially that Leopard is going full 64-bit and here I have my 64-bit processor that won't give me the kind of mileage it's supposed to.

I almost fell over from shock! :p I had to re-read your post to make sure I read it right the first time. :laugh: Your last line really puts it into perspective. If a 64bit processor can't run a 64bit OS, I would consider that a problem.

[LTD]

I almost fell over from shock! :p I had to re-read your post to make sure I read it right the first time. :laugh: Your last line really puts it into perspective. If a 64bit processor can't run a 64bit OS, I would consider that a problem.

Well it's true. PPC users were already down and now Apple's kicking them.

[Denholm]

Well it's true. PPC users were already down and now Apple's kicking them.

How so? 10.5 still runs on PPC doesn't it? :unsure: Apple can't support a dead hardware platform forever and it's time to move on really. And with OS X 10.6 Intel based Mac's are finally going to have an truly optimized system :cool:

(Y) About the Tony Bennett comment, at CES Microsoft had some raptards and Tripod?! :laugh:

[LTD]

Plenty of times I get frustrated with my PC and sometimes windows does something really stupid or even occasionally crashes on me. The sky is falling in!!! But is it "worse" than what i'd be getting if I chose to buy a mac with OSX on it?

Yes.

By definition, software and hardware that is not mated together and thus locked down, will always be more crash-prone and less reliable. Mileage varies, but that's the rule of thumb.

This is fact. Securing Windows and performing regular maintenance on it won't change that fact.

OS X on Apple hardware and Windows running on any number of combinations of hardware are in no way similar. On the one hand you have a banana-boat OS that must appeal to the entire market and run on all the hardware out there (and the constant target of attacks), and on the other you've got an OS that is designed to run on specific hardware and is designed for the consumer market, and not necessarily for the entire consumer market. $400 Dells need not apply.

[duritz]

you are thinking too hard about this....its just electronics lmao

[portauthority]

Dang this Mac thing is like a cult!

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Can I just say now that I want it known that LTD does not speak for or represent many Mac users, myself included. I use my Mac because I prefer it and like the way it works but I still have a keen interest in all technologies and all OS's from ALL VENDORS. I'm personally fed up with all Mac users on here getting the ire of the Windows faithful based on the blind fanboyism that, I'm sorry to say LTD, you embody in one frustrating little package.

Really - there are plenty of us who use Macs but like Windows. Please don't slam all Mac users on the strengths of LTD's arguments.

[Mercellus]

Yes.

By definition, software and hardware that is not mated together and thus locked down, will always be more crash-prone and less reliable. Mileage varies, but that's the rule of thumb.

This is fact. Securing Windows and performing regular maintenance on it won't change that fact.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I have found in my experience that the Mac works better overall and provides a friendlier user interface, it's not just because of the software (Mac OS X and the applications) but by the fact that the software and hardware are integrated as one seamless package. You don't have to worry about dealing with drivers because it's all handled for you. It really just works.

OS X on Apple hardware and Windows running on any number of combinations of hardware are in no way similar. On the one hand you have a banana-boat OS that must appeal to the entire market and run on all the hardware out there (and the constant target of attacks), and on the other you've got an OS that is designed to run on specific hardware and is designed for the consumer market, and not necessarily for the entire consumer market. $400 Dells need not apply.

+1. There's no way that Mac OS X running on a Mac is similar to Windows running on your average OEM PC.

For example, as I said before with a Mac you are getting the entire package, everything is integrated and it's seamless. The software that is available for the platform is beautiful and works quite well. There's no upgrading drivers or anything like that, this is all handled by Apple through updates to Mac OS X (for example, Mac OS X 10.5.6).

On an OEM PC running Windows, you have to deal with driver updates, most of which run through different installers (or require that you unzip the driver files to a folder and then install manually through the Device Manager). On top of that, you have all of the bundled software that is installed by default and running in addition to features that Windows already provides, such as Google Desktop running in parallel with Windows Search.

Boot up a Mac for the first time and go through the Setup Assistant and you are presented with a clean desktop and no pop-ups. Now, try booting up a Dell for the first time. You'll run through Windows OOBE, wait ~3 minutes for your desktop to load and be bombarded with pop-ups from the likes of McAfee or Norton wanting to be activated, various different balloon pop-ups, and other dialogs to hunt through. The latter is hardly what I would classify as a fun user experience.

Macbook: 2GHz Core2Duo, 2GB ram, 160GB HD, geforce 9400 graphics

?929 in the UK

HP laptop: 2GHz Core2Duo, 4GB ram, 320GB HD, blu-ray drive, geforce 9200 graphics

?699

I'm left wondering why I should ever feel the need to pay an extra ?230 to buy a mac with a lesser specification. Does it do something earth shattering that the HP laptop won't? I doubt it.

The MacBook is housed inside of an aluminum unibody enclosure, with superior battery life, a superior graphics processor, a screen that looks far better compared to any PC notebook on the market, features a multi-touch trackpad which supports very useful gestures, and overall is of much higher build quality compared to an HP or a Dell.

In regards to the memory, Mac OS X also uses memory a LOT more efficiently than Windows Vista, which is why 2 GB of RAM ships as the standard on these machines, because quite honestly it's more than enough for a lot of people. If you're unsatisfied with the size of the hard drive, you can bump it up when ordering, or you can do what most people do and purchase an external hard drive which is a lot more sensible as you can use it for backing up your data.

As for the Blu-Ray drive, there's no point in offering it in a notebook in my opinion. Why? Because the screen resolution is 1280x800 on the MacBook, and 1440x900 on the MacBook Pro. Standard definition DVDs are abundant and look great at these resolutions, whereas Blu-Ray discs would only look marginally better and there are less of them on the market. Let's say for example you had a VHS tape and you wanted to convert it to a digital format, you'd rip it into the computer and if you wanted to share it with your friends or family, you'd burn it to a DVD and hand it over to them to watch, simple enough right? With Blu-Ray, you'd do the same thing, except you'd need a Blu-Ray burner and your friends or family would need Blu-Ray players, which still aren't overly common in most households... and that's forgetting the fact that it would be pointless to record a VHS quality video to a Blu-Ray disc anyway as it isn't even high definition.

Now, the reason why the price is lower on a typical PC compared to an Apple computer is because PC OEMs get away with shipping their products with a ton of bundled software (McAfee or Norton, Google Desktop, Roxio Easy CD Creator, etc) to subsidize the cost. Apple doesn't do this, they ship their computers with iLife, which is their own software and gets you off to an excellent start. You name one PC that ships with photo editing and photo management software, a full-fledged professional quality movie editor, music creation and mixing software, an application to create gorgeous DVDs, and an easy to use website editor, all of which integrate with the operating system and are easy to use.

I'm not saying I hate Windows, quite the opposite, I used Windows for years and still use it occasionally on other computers. What I can't stand however is that OEMs to this day still continue to bog their machines down with junk.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Mercellus

[John S. Veteran]

<off-topic posts removed>

[LTD]

Can I just say now that I want it known that LTD does not speak for or represent many Mac users, myself included. I use my Mac because I prefer it and like the way it works but I still have a keen interest in all technologies and all OS's from ALL VENDORS. I'm personally fed up with all Mac users on here getting the ire of the Windows faithful based on the blind fanboyism that, I'm sorry to say LTD, you embody in one frustrating little package.

Really - there are plenty of us who use Macs but like Windows. Please don't slam all Mac users on the strengths of LTD's arguments.

Actually, my sentiments echo those of a lot of Mac users. Don't apologize on their behalf. They don't need that. A good portion of Mac users aren't fence-sitters by any stretch of the imagination. They're Apple enthusiasts. And in no other group but Mac users can you find the kind of sentiment that you're seeing here. It doesn't mean that there is no good reason for that attitude or that it isn't legitimate, but they don't always speak up and come out with their honest opinion and admit to their bias, for fear of stepping on everyone's toes or outright alienation.

Hardly anyone here is objective. If you have made a conscious choice to use a particular platform and you consistently choose that, then you're not objective. You're just good at hiding your biases diplomatically. Oh, people do try. That's good. It's a nice ideal. But it can also obscure the kind of honesty and forthrightness that makes discussions interesting and poignant.

Such is the ebb and flow of our discussions and debates. We should certainly apologize for ad hominem attacks and name personal calling that occurs in this community, but criticisms - no matter how harsh of products, services, CEOs of the entities that provide them, are all fair game and should be. That's part of the game.

But don't worry, Chicane, no one's casting any aspersions about you. You have nothing to fear.

[Sandor]

Actually, my sentiments echo those of a lot of Mac users. Don't apologize on their behalf. They don't need that. A good portion of Mac users aren't fence-sitters by any stretch of the imagination. They're Apple enthusiasts. And in no other group but Mac users can you find the kind of sentiment that you're seeing here. It doesn't mean that there is no good reason for that attitude or that it isn't legitimate, but they don't always speak up and come out with their honest opinion and admit to their bias, for fear of stepping on everyone's toes or outright alienation.

Hardly anyone here is objective. If you have made a conscious choice to use a particular platform and you consistently choose that, then you're not objective. You're just good at hiding your biases diplomatically. Oh, people do try. That's good. It's a nice ideal. But it can also obscure the kind of honesty and forthrightness that makes discussions interesting and poignant.

Such is the ebb and flow of our discussions and debates.

But don't worry, Chicane, no one's casting any aspersions about you. You have nothing to fear.

it's just the "holier than thou" sentiments that get chucked around and that somehow you're a superior "technologist" or something if you use a mac.

i'd say my main experience is with windows and i can't say it's been terrible perhaps save for windows ME lol. the rest of the time windows has done pretty well. when i use a mac i find it cumbersome and awkward but that's just my view. i'd take a linux distro like ubuntu over osx myself.

[Mercellus]

i'd say my main experience is with windows and i can't say it's been terrible perhaps save for windows ME lol. the rest of the time windows has done pretty well. when i use a mac i find it cumbersome and awkward but that's just my view. i'd take a linux distro like ubuntu over osx myself.

Different strokes for different folks, it's all about using what you're comfortable with and what gets the job done for you. For some, it's Windows. For others, it's Mac OS X, or Linux, or whatever other system you enjoy using. I know when I switched over to the Mac full time I basically had to throw out my Windows habits because I found myself doing things in Mac OS X that I wasn't really supposed to be doing, you have to "re-train" yourself a bit.

[LTD]

it's just the "holier than thou" sentiments that get chucked around and that somehow you're a superior "technologist" or something if you use a mac.

i'd say my main experience is with windows and i can't say it's been terrible perhaps save for windows ME lol. the rest of the time windows has done pretty well. when i use a mac i find it cumbersome and awkward but that's just my view. i'd take a linux distro like ubuntu over osx myself.

Well I think we can agree that Linux is a nice alternative. I'm not sure whether I'd go with Ubuntu - having been only marginally impressed by it back in 2005 (though it does what it's supposed to), but my Linux experience amounts to only 1.5 years straight, so it isn't that much and it isn't current. I like what I see with Fedora, however, and Arch Linux.

I found OS X a bit odd to use after leaving Windows as well. But there was a lot more that kept me there until I became accustomed to the interface.

I'd say the easiest one for me to figure out after leaving Windows was Linux KDE. It's a bit Windows-like.

[osirisX]

Someone should rename this thread to "Over Analyzing". I think it would be appropriate :)

[iamwhoiam]

if you're an Apple user that remembers The Second Coming of Jobs in 1997

Be glad that Apple's HQ isn't in Waco Texas. You'd be targets for the F.B.I.

there's no point in supporting the legacy architecture forever.

I wish someone would tell that to Microsoft.

Edited January 17, 2009 by iamwhoiam