Apple Charging $5 To Enter Stores

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
Same here, there are some old G3s around at some clients, they suck. Not because they're MACs, there are many reasons for their suckage. One client is road-testing Mac minis...cute for sure but I think the novelty of cuteness may wear off, then a critical analyis of fitness for purpose will begin.

Mac's are upgradable, but often (but not always) at higher cost, increased difficulty, and more limited software availability. Also, the physical design of some models, being led more by form than function often reduces expansion potential. The MAC Mini is a case in point, though to be fair the same can be said of any SFF or customised device of any heritage.

Apple stopped selling G3s about, oh, 4 years ago.

Your client is only buying Minis because they're cute? I can't imagine a more idiotic reason for buying a computer, however, if that is the only reason, I can see why they're buying Macs, I've yet to see an attractive small desk top PC.

The average desktop computer has a lifespan of 4 to 5 years. While upgrading can prolong the life of a computer and save the planet to boot, with Firewire and USB2, peripherals can easily be added on. Memory is easily added and hard drives are easily changed on any Mac. You make it sound as though Macs are impossible to upgrade.

The Mac Mini, is not representative of Apple's entire line. It is a niche product designed to serve as an low end Mac. It serves its purpose just fine. Since it takes up such a small amount of space and uses so little material, it appeals to those who don't want some beige box cluttering up their space.

Design is important to Apple and the world is filled with poorly designed products. I would rather spend a little more on a product that not only looks appealing but is well thought out and addresses real life issues.

The Mag Safe power adapter, the responsive keyboards, the anti shock hard drives, the two finger pad which scrolls vertically, horizontally and diagonally are all extremely useful to me. When you spend money on crappily designed products you're always going to forego functionality.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
186
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Being both a Mac and PC user all I can say is if it were not for Apple and their vision and ingenuity of developing more human friendly interfaces, we would still be using DOS and the internet would be a Microsoft nightmare.

The ripple that Apple has had for the computing industry and end users is profound. Making computers easier to use is very important in my book as a non-techie. As a visionary company I am sure they are not finished yet. It is a good sign when creativity is rewarded and can be profitable. I don't expect much from the PC side. They always seem to be the followers, not the innovators. And follow they do.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
You really do have difficulties with comprehension don't you?

Apple stopped selling G3s about, oh, 4 years ago.

Yes, that's why I said "Some old (old being the operative word) G3s". :rolleyes:

Your client is only buying Minis because they're cute? I can't imagine a more idiotic reason for buying a computer, however, if that is the only reason, I can see why they're buying Macs,

Nor could I (but I know some do) But what I actually said was a client..wait here's what I said:

Dong20 said:
...One client is road-testing Mac minis...cute for sure but I think the novelty of cuteness may wear off, then a critical analyis of fitness for purpose will begin.

The two elements, client is road-testing and cute were not co-dependent or even necessarily related, the cute was my addition. The client thinks so too, but again it was a perception not a requirement (which was minimal use of desktop real estate). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.:rolleyes:

I've yet to see an attractive small desk top PC.

Well, I've yet to read an entirely sensible comment from you either, but I hold out hope, on both counts.

The average desktop computer has a lifespan of 4 to 5 years. While upgrading can prolong the life of a computer and save the planet to boot, with Firewire and USB2, peripherals can easily be added on. Memory is easily added and hard drives are easily changed on any Mac. You make it sound as though Macs are impossible to upgrade.

No, read again. I said... oh look here we go again:

Dong20 said:
Mac's are upgradable, but often (but not always) at higher cost, increased difficulty, and more limited software availability. Also, the physical design of some models, being led more by form than function often reduces expansion potential. The MAC Mini is a case in point, though to be fair the same can be said of any SFF or customised device of any heritage.

Where do you see the word impossible? Are there any blatant factual errors in that statement? PC's are in general, easier and (almost always) cheaper to upgrade, whine all you like, it won't change the facts.

The Mac Mini, is not representative of Apple's entire line. It is a niche product designed to serve as an low end Mac. It serves its purpose just fine. Since it takes up such a small amount of space and uses so little material, it appeals to those who don't want some beige box cluttering up their space.

Did I say it was, or that it doesn't?

Design is important to Apple and the world is filled with poorly designed products. I would rather spend a little more on a product that not only looks appealing but is well thought out and addresses real life issues.

So is price. But other than that I agree.

The Mag Safe power adapter, the responsive keyboards, the anti shock hard drives, the two finger pad which scrolls vertically, horizontally and diagonally are all extremely useful to me. When you spend money on crappily designed products you're always going to forego functionality.

There are some nice design features in some of the Mac range, most certainly. Whether that justifies the inflated prices for some of them, or that of some after sale ancilliaries and upgrades I'm less convinced of.

Poor design is not an intrinsic feature of PC's or Macs, only the terminally ill informed or biased would suggest it was.

Final analysis; if Macs were that great - looks, perfomance, price etc etc as a package and PCs that bad the tables would almost certainly be reversed.

There's no guarantee that the best will prevail though, after all Betamax was better than VHS in all aspects except its marketing and the determination of its backers. Does the same 'injustice' apply to Macs? I'm not sold, although the insane attitudes of Apple in the late 70s and 80s sowed the seeds of today's imbalance.

Your comments mark you out as one of those who is unable, or unwilling to see that there is good and bad in both platforms, and that each has a role in the market, which need not necessarily be to the exlcusion of the other.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Final analysis; if Macs were that great - looks, perfomance, price etc etc as a package and PCs that bad the tables would almost certainly be reversed.
Aha, now we are getting to the core issue: it's the same one that happend with Betamax v. VHS. Betamax in many respects was the better format, but VHS won out because it was willing to sell out and Betamax was just a little to greedy in the "proprietary" areas. The Apple products (hardware and software) were, at least in the beginning, so strictly controlled, that there was a quality and consistency that just was not present in the "IBM-compatibles." The flip side was that loosened controls on the DOS machines and software meant more competition, and therefore lower prices, and therefore more widespread use. Ubiquity doesn't necessarily mean superiority, though.
 

Mr. Snakey

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Posts
21,752
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
I see, success in business is grounds for prison time now?

That's the second time you've said "let's not go there" on this topic. Is this perhaps because your view that the erstwhile Mr Gates should be in Sing Sing is based more on a dislike of some nature; of him personally or business in general, rather than as is generally required, a conviction for criminal activity?

Last time I checked "My World" was the same as yours, physically at least, though I'm not sure what realm of imaginary reality you inhabit within it based on some of the strange views you espouse here. See below.:tongue:

"Well all this one guy owning the whole block started back in the 90's. "

I often wonder where you get some of your 'facts' from. Gates set up shop in 1975, opened it's first internation office in 1978 and the first commercial version of Windows was released in 1985. BTW, Apple was founded in 1976, took an early lead but lost it with a few years, mostly due to disastrously protective business strategies.:rolleyes:

Opening up the firewall sounds like a 'sensible plan', provided of course you're happy to lose any semblence of control over the device and its content. Assuming of course you're not behind another firewall.

Running a correctly configured firewall has neglible effect on performance or behaviour. When you say strip Vista to the bone, what do you mean? I'm just curious.

Linux/Unix is not a mainstream product for desktop use in business, and does hardly better in the home (statistically). That's not some fanciful quirk from "my world", it's a simple reality. The reasons are many and varied, but mostly around usability, support and (less so these days) poor application and hardware support.

Being free clearly isn't sufficient compensation for other (perceived) deficiencies. That may change, but I don't see it happening soon.

To Uncut - I agree that MACs and PCs are both fine.

To others - I like and use both but prefer PC's. Mostly for practical, professional reasons not out of some sense of stupid brand loyalty or inane "they're simply better, so there" mentality.
Love on ya! We all have are opinons. Yours was most interesting. Thanx:smile: :cool:
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Aha, now we are getting to the core issue: it's the same one that happend with Betamax v. VHS. Betamax in many respects was the better format, but VHS won out because it was willing to sell out and Betamax was just a little to greedy in the "proprietary" areas.

Exactly, as I said in the sentence after the one you quoted.

The Apple products (hardware and software) were, at least in the beginning, so strictly controlled, that there was a quality and consistency that just was not present in the "IBM-compatibles." The flip side was that loosened controls on the DOS machines and software meant more competition, and therefore lower prices, and therefore more widespread use.

I know, I mentioned this to Uncut (see above) there's little doubt Apple had a superior product back in the 80s but their desire to keep a tight rein on it backfired. Messrs Jobs & Co have not strayed too far from that path over the years and it's cost them dearly. The recent move to Intel probably saved them. PC makers have too often failed to take full advantage by shipping some decidedly dodgy kit over the years, as well as some great stuff too.

Asthetics aside, hardware isn't really the issue (any more), these days software is, and in this regard Microsoft was for so long its own worst enemy, but with little real pressure to do better - they had a captive market. Windows was good in parts, bad in others, merely indifferent for the most.

Ubiquity doesn't necessarily mean superiority, though.

I know, look at people, we're everywhere...:rolleyes:
 

tallguypns

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
1,637
Media
3
Likes
54
Points
268
Location
Pensacola, Florida, United States of America
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Now that the PCs have all the goodies factory installed, the price gap is MUCH more noticeable, since the $2000 Mac and the $800 PC are a lot more functionally comparable.

Yugo and Ferrari are functionally comparable too. They both have 4 wheels, an engine, and get you from point a to b. Anyone that says macs are much more expensive than PCs is someone that hasnt compared, pardon the pun, apples to apples. There are plenty of articles out there about the cost of comparable machines these days. There is usually minimal difference between the cost of comparable machines. In fact, I remember one recently in which the mac was several hundred dollars cheaper than the dell equivalent.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Yugo and Ferrari are functionally comparable too. They both have 4 wheels, an engine, and get you from point a to b. Anyone that says macs are much more expensive than PCs is someone that hasnt compared, pardon the pun, apples to apples. There are plenty of articles out there about the cost of comparable machines these days. There is usually minimal difference between the cost of comparable machines. In fact, I remember one recently in which the mac was several hundred dollars cheaper than the dell equivalent.
I've been doing some comparison shopping for the last 5 months or so, and reading reviews where I can find them. The "more for your money" truism is not so true any more for Apple computers. Trust me, I've been a die-hard Mac-man since the mid-1980s. I'm about to change my mind. The benefits of the machines no longer truly parallels the higher out-of-the-box cost.

(Although for the ease of adding peripherals and especially storage devices... that alone would be worth a couple of hundred dollars to me. Working with various volumes on the desktop, without having to navigate through "My Computer", is certainly a huge draw for me.)
 

tallguypns

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
1,637
Media
3
Likes
54
Points
268
Location
Pensacola, Florida, United States of America
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
There's no guarantee that the best will prevail though, after all Betamax was better than VHS in all aspects except its marketing and the determination of its backers. Does the same 'injustice' apply to Macs? I'm not sold, although the insane attitudes of Apple in the late 70s and 80s sowed the seeds of today's imbalance.

This is a very interesting and fitting point. Although Mac hasn't suffered the same fate as Betamax, I think a valid point can be made that Mac's lack of market share can be attributed to the same process that killed betamax. Namely, Sony insisted on control of the Betamax brand, whereas JVC was willing to license the VHS technology to any manufacturer. Same as Mac wanted (and still has total control) of the OS and hardware, whereas Microsoft licensed DOS to anyone that would pay the fee.
 

tallguypns

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
1,637
Media
3
Likes
54
Points
268
Location
Pensacola, Florida, United States of America
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I've been doing some comparison shopping for the last 5 months or so, and reading reviews where I can find them. The "more for your money" truism is not so true any more for Apple computers. Trust me, I've been a die-hard Mac-man since the mid-1980s. I'm about to change my mind. The benefits of the machines no longer truly parallels the higher out-of-the-box cost.

(Although for the ease of adding peripherals and especially storage devices... that alone would be worth a couple of hundred dollars to me. Working with various volumes on the desktop, without having to navigate through "My Computer", is certainly a huge draw for me.)

I'm not talking about more for your money. I'm talking about hardware, pure and simple. The equivalent hardware from dell was more expensive than the Mac, before you took into account the software that was included on either.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
You really do have difficulties with comprehension don't you?
I believe that C8 is responding to your response to a post of mine, but doesn't realize it because I'm probably on his ignore list. I recall reaming the holy marrow out of him a few weeks back over some other dumbass post of his, and his subsequent reaction was withdrawal. Fine with me. But it makes his "contributions" to any thread I'm in essentially incoherent.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I'm not talking about more for your money. I'm talking about hardware, pure and simple. The equivalent hardware from dell was more expensive than the Mac, before you took into account the software that was included on either.
<sigh> Never mind. You are not comprehending what I'm saying, and I'm not going to type it again.
 

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
295
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
With the significant investment in graphics/sound/editing software, plus fonts, etc. that most power users have, legally switching often means a considerable purchasing outlay that may be equal or greater than the new hardware itself. Upgrading is expensive enough as it is, and most of my clients expect me to have current software to handle their jobs.

The software investments often indicate a reluctance to switch platforms. Adobe has some great multi-platform software, but even those are not without glitches. I use Macs simply because it was historically the best vehicle for my industry at the time the industry adopted desktop computers as a viable professional platform. The same is true for many colleagues. I know of an advertising agency that uses Macs on all of their accounts except for their significant Dell account. They keep all of that team housed on a separate floor so that Dell clients never see a Mac being used near their work.

Now one could use either Apple machines or PCs and do the same jobs, often without any meaningful problems with compatibility or quality. Some Adobe products now get updated for Windows or Vista in advance of OSX. Sadly, being a minority share of the market doesn't benefit Apple users in the software part of the graphics world.

Aside from the cost argument favouring PCs, I once read a humourous rant about how the paltry offerings of games on Macs was the real reason in the early days that Apple never became compelling enough for the average user (or corporate purchaser) to want to switch. Too many guys wanted to keep playing their collections of games going back to DOS. Boys and their toys! :biggrin1:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
The software investments often indicate a reluctance to switch platforms. Adobe has some great multi-platform software, but even those are not without glitches. I use Macs simply because it was historically the best vehicle for my industry at the time the industry adopted desktop computers as a viable professional platform. The same is true for many colleagues. I know of an advertising agency that uses Macs on all of their accounts except for their significant Dell account. They keep all of that team housed on a separate floor so that Dell clients never see a Mac being used near their work.
You illustrate a little better one of the points I was trying to make earlier.

A relative of mine who is the marketing manager for a major television station in southern California gave me a tour of the station about 3 years ago. Windows machines everywhere, except in one section, where they were all brand-new pimped out Macs (about 20 of them). Right. It was the graphics department (they call it something else, but I can't remember the name at the moment...)
 

LeeEJ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Posts
1,444
Media
2
Likes
26
Points
258
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Trust me, I've been a die-hard Mac-man since the mid-1980s. I'm about to change my mind. The benefits of the machines no longer truly parallels the higher out-of-the-box cost.

Don't do it, man -- the guys at work who, for their own computers, have switched from Windows to Mac over the past few months couldn't be any happier.

(Although for the ease of adding peripherals and especially storage devices... that alone would be worth a couple of hundred dollars to me. Working with various volumes on the desktop, without having to navigate through "My Computer", is certainly a huge draw for me.)

Now you're reaching cost-of-ownership territory (or "TOC" in business-speak).

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5722

(actually, his acronym is ROI :wink: )
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
TCO ?

Mac, the hardware costs more, they bundle a few apps with it, but certainly not photoshop and office, those you have to buy just the same.

PC, the hardware is cheaper, so now you can buy an app to make up for the difference.

Sounds even to me. As for buying antivirus, there are still free ones available for Windows, avira for XP comes to mind.

Anyways, TCO, build your own and put Linux on it. Free software to go with inexpensive hardware. I'm running AMD hardware and Ubuntu, have benn for 13 months since Ubuntu 6.06 LTS came out. Since, I've upgraded OS and all software applications twice (Ubuntu 6.10 and 7.04). Did it all on-line and have been happy with results. Most of what OS X Leopard will do in October 2007, I've had functional in Ubuntu. Best part, it was free.

There's nothing wrong with any of these products, if Ubuntu doesn't make you happy for Linux, there's always Sabayon.

Sabayon Linux Project Website