OSNews

That's your motivation for switching to a Macintosh? You shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, let alone a PC or a mac if you're spending *that* much time on using virus scanners-clearly you have a fundamental lack of computer knowledge

no, it is in RDF file osnews.com/files/recent.rdf but I still don't see the headline in my firefox...

Why are these zealots all like that?

Boo linux is hard you have to use apt-get or whatever to install and you have to read this and that and etc...

Windows is so easy! I just have to install my the ultimate anti-spyware, insert floppy disks during installation to have sata drivers, purchase/know where to get an antivirus, use xp firewall and not say yes to each prompt without reading (or get another firewall by searching, or purchasing one), and bla bla...

I'm not trying to flame, but I think most people are sooo used to dealing with windows's quirks that they forget that they too had to learn about them and that joe sixpack, the poor thing that shouldn't use linux because x/y/z is hard, ALSO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO THOSE THINGS ON WINDOWS!!

Why should I waste time having to deal with these things? I did for years and I got to a point in my life where it wasn't worth the time that I was dedicating to making my system work the way it should in the first place. I have too many better ways to spend my time (i.e. not in front of a computer) that I can't afford to learn every new trick... I can't afford to edit apt.conf every time I need to install a package from some new repository. I can't afford to worry about managing different dependencies (some from stable and unstable and not compatible with each other).

For those who can, I salute you, and encourage you to keep working on your respective distro in the hope that it may one day be viable for people like me. Just please stop trying to convince me that Linux is ready for the desktop. It isn't. I've tried. There's a lot of good work that has gone into it, and I'm truly impressed by its progress, but let it stand on its own merit... don't shove it upon me. Let me decide to come back if and when I think it's ready.

Right now Linux -is- too hard for the average user.. especially if anything goes wrong. And even for someone who has experience with the OS and understands how things work, such as myself, it just takes too much time to keep things running smoothly and correctly. It's not a truly viable alternative to Windows and certainly not to OSX. When it is, I may return.

I totally agree with you. Linux as well as BSD is great for server use.
However, if you need to get stuff done either go with Windows or OS X.

I wouldn't consider myself a neophite by any means, yet ended up with an infested box within a couple of days of installing Windows 2000. Why? Perhaps it is because using both Mac OS and Linux for several years, I got myself into the mindset where I could install whatever software without a worry. Quite frankly, I don't want to leave that mindset behind and will continue to run Linux and Mac OS.

There are other reasons for leaving Windows behind as well. Just installing the drivers for my box was hell, and the drivers didn't allow me to fully utilise my hardware (eg. burning CDs and DVDs). That is in sharp contrast to the Mac world, where just about all of your hardware just works. It is also a sharp contrast to the Linux world, where I can pop in an unconfigurable live CD and expect things to just work.

The Windows world has been depending upon the same old stereotypes to support their platform far too long, and the rest of the world has finally started to notice that the competition no longer fits that stereo type. Maybe now Microsoft will pay the price, because the only place where I see Microsoft having the lead is in application support. They will not be able to maintain that lead if other markets become profitable -- and Apple is showing that the Mac market can be very profitable.

I recently bought a mac mini and I love it. I hate ipods though, they're for trendy-ass posers.
Whatever the reason though, good for Apple.

Agreed. iPods themselves are pretty slick, but there are certainly much more functional mp3 players out there that don't leave you changed to the awful iTunes program. IMHO, it's more about flash than anything else.

I also think that the spyware situation is causing more people to migrate to Macs than iPods, and I say more power to them.

Agreed. iPods themselves are pretty slick, but there are certainly much more functional mp3 players out there that don't leave you changed to the awful iTunes program. IMHO, it's more about flash than anything else.

Yes, or Apple's music format. I own an iAudio myself and I can play just about any currently available audio format on it including ogg.

To be fair it's not only Apple, most mp3 player manufacturers seem intent to lock you in.

Yes, because there is so much content available in OGG that we need to play.

No, it could NEVER be about offering a superior product. It HAS to be about trendiness because that opinion helps justify my player purchase to myself.

I purposely didn't buy the iPod mini in favor of the Creative Zen simply because it wasn't an iPod and I hate when a product gets as over hyped as the iPod.

Why are you so touchy about any negativity towards Apple? I couldn't help but notice all your posts. Religious allegiance to corporations is so strange.

It certinly isn't about any of us being so "touchy" about anything negative being said about Apple... its when people go out of their way to say something negative... for the sheer sake of saying something negative... and not because there is any validity to their argument.

Agreed. iPods themselves are pretty slick, but there are certainly much more functional mp3 players out there that don't leave you changed to the awful iTunes program. IMHO, it's more about flash than anything else.

I have an iPod and also hate iTunes, but there are several free alternatives, such as GTKPod on Linuxland and the Winamp plugin on Windowsland.

I have an iPod and love iTunes.

I've used several of the alternative players and don't like most of their interfaces. That and none of them have a music store built in. Thats really important to me now.

I have an iPod and also hate iTunes, but there are several free alternatives, such as GTKPod on Linuxland and the Winamp plugin on Windowsland

But that's the issue - why do I need a 'free alternatives' to make the damn thing work? Personally, I'd rather use a player that has the ability to be recognized as a mass storage device (like my iAudio players), and then I can use whatever I want. Basically, whether on Windows (2k/XP), Linux, or Mac, I hook it up via USB, and it's instantly recognized. No drivers, iTunes, or free alternatives required.

"But that's the issue - why do I need a 'free alternatives' to make the damn thing work?"

You shouldn't. Thankfully... you don't need to. iTunes works great!


Personally, I'd rather use a player that has the ability to be recognized as a mass storage device (like my iAudio players), and then I can use whatever I want.

The iPod works as a mass storage device as well. I use it all the time to shuttle documents from home to work.


"Basically, whether on Windows (2k/XP), Linux, or Mac, I hook it up via USB, and it's instantly recognized. No drivers, iTunes, or free alternatives required."

The iPod works the same way. No need for drivers to use as a mass storage device.

The iPod works the same way. No need for drivers to use as a mass storage device.

So you're saying the iPod works as mass storage on Windows & Linux as well as Mac, *without* driveres?

Ya, it behaves like any firewire storage device.

This is old news.

One thing for sure is that i would go crazy organizing my files in iTunes. I would definately use good old explorer or whatever file manager (nautilus, konqueror, etc) to organize my music.

Ipods can do that now so thats nice. I still prefer the iRiver because of its color, features (fm radio, microphone, battery life [last longer per charge, and has a longer life], firmware updates [now the ih-40 can play video files, when they were ony meant for pictures]), and of course the price. It has a more traditional design (why is everything designed by apple look like its for hippies on acid....I mean its not bad, but implanting modern art design into computer products gets....sickening)
I also like how it acts just like a hard drive so I can do a lot of things to it (defragging, disk cleanup, checks for bad sectors, partitoning, formating etc.)

The Ipod aint bad and all that, but people should look at the competition though. Its safe to say that apple does have a monopoly in this departmant, so its good to remember the competition

I'm one of those. I run Fedora Core 4 on the desktop, and added an iBook laptop a few months ago. I got the iBook because it was the smallest laptop I could find in my price range, not because it was a Mac.

I prefer Fedora Core 4 slightly to everything else, but it really doesn't matter which OS I run. I feel equally comfortable in just about any of them.

"If 400,000 trend lemmings are helping keep"

Trend lemmings?

Why can't they just like it for it being the superior product that it is rather than they following trends?



"I do hope that when Apple moves to Intel that Apple hardware will not be so overpriced."

Its important that you recognise that Apple hardware typically costs *LESS* than a comperably equipped PC (in hardware and operating system and software)

The problem Apple has is not price... its options. Apple has a limited selection as compared to the total PC marketplace. As a result, you are forced to buy more and pay more when you buy a Mac... as compared to being given the option to buy less and spend less when buying a PC.

Trend lemmings?

Why can't they just like it for it being the superior product that it is rather than they following trends?

If you're referring to iPods, it's because they are not superior products. I own 2 1GB flash iAudio players, and I wouldn't trade either one of them for any number of 60GB iPod players, even if the iPods were the same size and had the same battery life, unless I were allowed to sell them

>"Trend lemmings?

>>Why can't they just like it for it being the superior product that it is rather than they following trends? "

"If you're referring to iPods"

Actually, the comment was in reference to the 400,000 new Windows users that switched to Macintosh, but the superior product could conceivably also apply to the iPod as well depending on what most consumers deem makes a superior product.


"it's because they are not superior products."

If we use the public's desire for specific functionality and usability as the barometer that gauges what is and what is not superior than yes, the iPod can indeed be regarded as superior.


"own 2 1GB flash iAudio players, and I wouldn't trade either one of them for any number of 60GB iPod players"

And I've owned several an Archos Jukebox players as well as a lesser-known flash player and I wouldn't trade my iPod for any of those players I had in the past nor any that I see on the market now.

If you're referring to iPods, it's because they are not superior products. I own 2 1GB flash iAudio players, and I wouldn't trade either one of them for any number of 60GB iPod players, even if the iPods were the same size and had the same battery life, unless I were allowed to sell them

The point is they are superior products in thier markets. In terms of easy of use seemlessness and audio/build quailty. You wouldn't trade a flash player for a harddisk based one... what an ingenius revelation!!! Thanks.

The iPod is a trendy product, like the Sony Walkman.

It is hard to say it is "superior" to the other music players that have emerged on the market. It is fair to say it is "one of the best".

Other players offer more features, more formats, and more audio quality. Some of them also work with different/more content. And many ofter far simpler and cheaper battery replacement options vs. iPod.

Apple does have the most coherent offering and is arguably the most mature offering. As the overall market matures, Apple will have to do more and more to maintain brand leadership as functionality and content availability become commoditized.

"It is hard to say it is "superior" to the other music players that have emerged on the market. It is fair to say it is "one of the best"."

Yes, there are countless reviews on the internet that compare the iPod to other MP3 players based on quantifiable assets and yet the iPod continually comes out ahead as the superior option.


"Other players offer more features, more formats, and more audio quality."

And those players that may offer some of those assets are lacking in so many more such as playing the important file formats that people use most, having a lower size and weight and also having a better interface. In the end, the consumer dictates whats most important and it appears as if the consumer has spoken.


"Apple will have to do more and more to maintain brand leadership as functionality and content availability become commoditized."

Their track record thus far gives us no reason that they wont.

If you look at the current reviews (vs. years ago), then you will see that the iPod is "one of the best". Bill Machrone's reviews on audio quality have pointed out the shoddy sound quality that plagues many more recent iPods (but perhaps not as much the very latest models). Apple's iPods have difficulty driving many types of headphones, even today. Mainly this is because in many but not all of the iPod models, Apple used a very cheap design and bargain basement quality parts.

More importantly, if you look at USER FEEDBACK on these reviews, you will see that there are issues with the iPod. There are quality problems. There are headphone issues. There are many many iTunes compatibility issues. It is not the nirvana that you imply.

Do I need to remind you of the huge public shaming that was required to FORCE Apple to provide customers with a reasonable (still expensive) replacement battery?

http://www.ipodsdirtysecret.com/

This battery issue was the real Apple at work. This is the company that hardcore hates its customers. It is part of the shared cruelty experience that binds Mac "believers" together.

Apple has shown time and time again they can make an interesting new product. And every time -- 100% -- they have shown the world they can be TOO GREEDY and lose nearly 100% of the market share of this new product.

Thus while iPod is trendy today (as many previous Apple products have been in the past), BASED ON FACTS vs. IDEOLOGICAL TRUE BELIEVERISM, I would not have any great confidence Apple will be a leading player in this market in anything but the nearest of futures.

f you look at the current reviews (vs. years ago), then you will see that the iPod is "one of the best". Bill Machrone's reviews on audio quality have pointed out the shoddy sound quality that plagues many more recent iPods (but perhaps not as much the very latest models). Apple's iPods have difficulty driving many types of headphones, even today. Mainly this is because in many but not all of the iPod models, Apple used a very cheap design and bargain basement quality parts.


Either you have completely misuderstood Machrone's playertests or are deliberately contorting facts.

All Machrone's tests reveal is that the ipod mini can't drive a 40hz signal cleanly. He claims that there is pretty much no problem with anyother part of the frequency range.

He test a more recent ipod mini and claimed it was improved over the original mini.

If you read the article he claimed that all but the ipod shuffle failed his 40hz squarewave test even the ipod competitors!!!


This battery issue was the real Apple at work. This is the company that hardcore hates its customers. It is part of the shared cruelty experience that binds Mac "believers" together.

what nonsense!! I just canceled an oreder with dell because of aweful customerservice before even shipping the product. My dealings with Apple have been very pleasureable and so have everybody I know.


Apple has shown time and time again they can make an interesting new product. And every time -- 100% -- they have shown the world they can be TOO GREEDY and lose nearly 100% of the market share of this new product.

Right!!! the Battery issue caused Apple to loose all of the digital music player market. Some strong stuff you were smoking, mate.

Thus while iPod is trendy today (as many previous Apple products have been in the past), BASED ON FACTS vs. IDEOLOGICAL TRUE BELIEVERISM, I would not have any great confidence Apple will be a leading player in this market in anything but the nearest of futures.

The ipod has been trendy for the past 4 years now. Long time for a mere fad don't you think....

A Mac certainly costs more if you look at the hardware costs. The Reality Distortion Field is strong in you.

Software - yeah, perhaps Windows costs more if the people who use Windows usually paid the full retail price for all their software, and bought all the Windows equivelents for all the included Mac software. But nope, it's called burning CDs! And there is plenty of freeware out there for Windows.

I use Debian and Ubuntu GNU/Linux myself, and there is plenty of no purchase price software for it.

"A Mac certainly costs more if you look at the hardware costs."

If you ONLY look at hardware then yes... you are correct. But a Mac comes with so much more than just the hardware.


"The Reality Distortion Field is strong in you."

It only looks that way to those of you with the rose colored glasses.



"Software - yeah, perhaps Windows costs more if the people who use Windows usually paid the full retail price for all their software, and bought all the Windows equivalents for all the included Mac software. But nope, it's called burning CDs! And there is plenty of freeware out there for Windows."

And there is a lot of freeware for the Macintosh as well. Regardless of that point. the freeware (let alone most of the payware) doesn't come close to matching the software which comes with a Mac. Windows equivalents to iLife cost approximately $250 - $300.


"I use Debian and Ubuntu GNU/Linux myself, and there is plenty of no purchase price software for it."

I use Linux too and thoroually enjoy using it on a day to day basis but I do recognize that a lot of the free consumer apps aren't yet up to par with software on Windows and OS X.

Yeah, and you said the Mac hardware and the software are less expensive. Then you said PC hardware was less expensive because there was more competition, though you tried to spin it as just about competition. Now you sprout off about it being a freaking bundle. Make up your mind!

Did you read the part about pirating? It only costs $250-300 if you buy it in a store. People who buy windows are more likely to burn it. How many people do you know that went out and paid for all that software? How many people do you think need Garageband, for instance? Could you name some necessary software for running windows that comes with Mac that has no equivelent software for free on Windows?

"Yeah, and you said the Mac hardware and the software are less expensive. Then you said PC hardware was less expensive because there was more competition"

No, you misunderstood. Macs are less expensive than comperably equipped PCs (in both hardware and software and operating system). I group them in that way because thats the only way you can buy a Mac.... with all coupled together. If you are ONLY comparing hardware then the Mac will be more expensive because Apple requires you to buy an operating system and software. My final statement was that PCs allow you to buy less and therefore spend less. Macs require you to buy more so youare paying more. Its when you match a PC to a Macs specs that the PC is more expensive.

Thanks for making that point known. We all know (hope?) that you're not trying to push the mistaken agenda of many trolls in this forum that OS X is solely only about aesthetics to the exclusion of superior functionality.

windows is insecure by default. fresh windows installation doesn't require password for administrator. Linux on the other hand dosn't install without password and warns you when your password is weak.

I have windows xp laptop and I have very strong password for my user account. couple months ago I was shocked to realize that anyone could access my computer because the administrator (root) has no password. this is despite the fact that my user account which is administrator too has a strong password.

No one is "forcing" you into anything. No, it doesn't support OGG. Cue the 5 people in the world who care.

*Raises hand*
Although I admit to buying a player that doesn't do ogg either.

I think it's partly the Linux Halo that achieved the switchers.

Think about it: most people who stuck to x86 always considered Macs as too much of a fringe-platform. Too small user base, too small developer base. Wintel had all the cool new games and numerically more big applications.

Then Linux came around, and game-designers began porting to Linux (Unreal Tournament, Doom 3), and subsequently, because they were porting anyway, also to the Mac (Doom 3).

Linux had us considering alternate platforms at a time when 95% of us were Windows users. And then we found out Macs actually were an alternative too, after Linux turned out not-desktop ready for most of us.

"Then Linux came around, and game-designers began porting to Linux (Unreal Tournament, Doom 3), and subsequently, because they were porting anyway, also to the Mac (Doom 3)."

Thats rich. You think that because they were portintg anyways... why not prt for Macintosh? Pahlease. Game developers had been porting the high profile games for Macintosh all the while anyways. it had nothing to do with Linux's growth. While its true that Linux and Mac market share may be similar... the number of Linux installations has more to do with server installs than consumers who would otherwise be interested in playing games on the desktop. The desktop is where the Macintosh retains the majority of its user-base. So, as far as game-playing is concerned, there are much more Mac users buying games than Linux users.

I know i can play more games on linux then on mac =) (yay for cedega). And i believe that the number of people who bought linux for gaming is rougly equal to the number of people who bought macs for gaming which is roughly equal to zero.

Its hard to do ports for windows because its on the PPC architecture.

The switch to intel is bigger then people think, gameplaying will be as common on macs as they are on windos, but itll prolly just offset the loss apple will get from any major architecture shift.

iRiver > iPod

I got both and the iRiver is just better.

I've used both and would disagree with you.

which iriver player you used? I currently have an h-120 along with a 4th gen ipod

bleh an opinion is an opinion.

I also think the creative labs players (Zen) blow ipod away (even though you need seperate software for that). But i dont own that so I wont make any official opinion on that. The sound quality on those are good.

For all the bozos saying there is something better than an iPod and ITunes name it.

Well, if you like iTunes, then nothing. But for many of us iTunes is exactly what makes iPods suck. Maybe the integration is bitching on Macs, but for PCs, not so well.

Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would say that. I use iTunes on my PC as does practically every other person in my college dormitory. I can't find a single person who can say anything bad about it.

Your comment leads me to believe that you may be one of the Apple detractors that one of the earlier posters talked about.

Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would say that. I use iTunes on my PC as does practically every other person in my college dormitory. I can't find a single person who can say anything bad about it.

Fire iTunes up and play an audio file, then press CTRL+ALT+DEL and look at your RAM/system resources - 'nuff said.

Your comment leads me to believe that you may be one of the Apple detractors that one of the earlier posters talked about.

Not an Apple detractor - just an iPod/iTunes detractor

"Fire iTunes up and play an audio file, then press CTRL+ALT+DEL and look at your RAM/system resources - 'nuff said. "

And using more resources than you deem acceptable makes iTunes usability less functional how?

"However, I expect that with the advent of Intel macs, it is going to drop."

Curious... why would you think that an Intel-based Mac would cost less then a PowerPC-based Mac. Macs already cost less than comperably equipped PCs and PPC chips cost the same as Intel chips so the prices should be very similar to what they are today.

And then switch back yet again when they see Leopard.

"Being running Windows 2000 and later XP since year 2000. Never installed a virus scan, until a few months ago used IE (now FF) and even was running my system as an admin all the time, which I know I shouldn't have. "

I have been running three Linux boxes on my Intel machine (yeah, I am a Linux nut) - Mandrake 10.1, Fedora Core x (x is latest version), and Ubuntu for 3 months. Before that various versions of Linux - I have tried almost all of them except Gentoo perhaps.

I have not enabled any firewall on any of my Linux boxes. My machine is 24/7 connected to Internet. Never faced a problem so far. No antivirus either. No BSOD either ;-)

I think you are one of the lucky Windoze users out there, who have been spared some of the virulous virus attacks. Probably cuz of your firewalls and maybe you are careful while browsing the web. Hey, but with Linux you will be more relaxed, since the chance of infection is feeble with Linux.

Regarding your 100% CPU usage, I doubt most of it is taken by Windoze "System Idle processes", not your distributed computing project. Most of these projects, assuming you are running one like SETI@home crunch numbers only when the system is inactive, so I doubt your statement. Unless, you are into something that actually runs in the background.

"System Idle Process" is a counter which shows how much idle CPU cycles are available, it doesn't actually use those cycles. If "System Idle Process" shows 98%, look at the CPU Usage graph and you will see that only 2% of the CPU are used.

Oh really? Then how come my Win 2K system at work always shows 100% CPU usage even in the CPU usage graph (Task Manager) when I open it? I don't see any process taking 100% CPU except the so called "System Idle Processes".

Please englighten.

System Idle Process = Your system is idle. If its showing 100% cpu usage on the graph...then your comp is messed up

Here is a good explanation of what System Idle Process is: http://www.osnn.net/forum/showthread.php?t=783

If your CPU Usage graph shows 100% while the System Idle Process "uses" 100%, then your graph is broken. Does it ever show anything other than 100?

Oh really? Then how come my Win 2K system at work always shows 100% CPU usage even in the CPU usage graph (Task Manager) when I open it? I don't see any process taking 100% CPU except the so called "System Idle Processes".

Immediately after the opening Task manager diplays 100%, because its opening takes 100% of cpu for some amount of time:) After some seconds cpu usage falls back to normal level - 1-2%, if you don't have any background tasks (like SETI) active.

If you see constant 100% cpu graph and System Idle is showing you about 90-100% - you have something messed up in your Windows or in Task manager itself.

Oh really? Then how come my Win 2K system at work always shows 100% CPU usage even in the CPU usage graph (Task Manager) when I open it? I don't see any process taking 100% CPU except the so called "System Idle Processes"..

Because your machine has been ownez and is busy sending spam to everyone without a spam filter in the world.

"and four out of the five apps that come with iLif e the average person isn't even going to use."

I agree... only four apps are useful, but only agree with you because there are only four apps in iLife. As for those four though, they are very useful.


As with a pathetic office suite like AppleWorks."

AppleWorks isn't an office suite. Its a "works" software package similar to Microsoft works.



"Meanwhile, you're working on a slow, underpowered machine unless you sprang for a Powermac."

Not slow or underpowered. A powerMac is only necessary for high-end or ultra-high end comuting tasks.

Will somebody mod this troll down please?

<Will somebody mod this troll down please?[/i]

Oh dear god, Slashdot culture has set in.

But you were saying that they cost more... which implies cost more than comperably equipped PCs... which is not true.

If ever I've genuinely fallen into the zealot category, it was only because I hate to see my preferred platform denigrated by people so insecure about their plaform choice that they feel the need to detract from anything remotely positive relating to Apple. When such people go to such extreems to make Apple look bad, it may sometimes be necessary to go to the opposite extreme to offer balance.

yup

Just because more people buy something, doesnt mean its better.
We know more people buy pc's and windows then macs.....I guess that means windows products are superior =P

Btw I hate itunes. graphically it clashes with the rest of my system =D

The more people buy something does indeed indicate that it is preferred by users.

Lest you or anyone forget though, Windows did not achieve dominance by user preference. It was the operating system that was automatically installed on the PC in the first place. Its also important to remember that Microsoft used illegal business practices to keep competators away.

So the preference by usage actually does apply to all products except for those that achieved that dominance by roading the coat tails of other businesses or using illegal business practices.

Yes, please question the numbers anyway you can.

The more Apple disproves our previous comments that Apple could never regain sales... let alone grow faster than the total PC marketplace, just makes us look that much more out of touch.

I've read several reports that say that ogg and AAC were comperable at low bit rates. The iPod's inability to play Ogg (or rather vorbis if we want to be picky) isn't a big loss technically speaking.

Ogg takes too much processing power to decode, an will drain your battery faster. It's inefficient.

I don't think we're missing much

If you accept the thinking that some of these sales may have been to existing Windows users using both... then you must adopt the same methodology that so many of the Windows users out there may have added a Windows machine to their existing Mac.

The problems is the "market share" statistic which doesn't gauge the total number of products in use like so many of the people on this board think it does, but measures the total number of products sold.

In market share terms, adding a Mac while not adding a PC means that it was a switch... whether or not the person actually switched. The interesting thing here is that so many of you accepted the statistic when it supported your bias that people were defecting to Windows from Macintosh... (back in the day.)

What's good for the goose...

Your analogy is not right. The iPod achieved dominance through genuine superiority. As far as Windows is concerned, You're neglecting the fact that Apple was competing against a company that stole its concept and much of its code, then rode the coat tails of other businesses to achieve dominance then used illegal business practices to retain that dominance.

Yeah i think its bs when people get into specific circumstances to get their case through.

No just because something has more market share, doesnt mean its the superior product.

And I guess its also ok to spout off the word "inferior" for who knows what reason.

All it does is give me the mindset that the apple zealots are simply more pompous, rather then the mindset that apple makes better products.

I mean I supply facts why I like the iRiver better. There is no need for you to come back with simple responses like "the iRiver is simply inferior" or "the interface is inferior" or "the features that come with iRiver are no good".

Bleh "genuine" superiority. Hah I said I like the iRiver better. I own both of them, most people who have Ipods dont even KNOW what an Iriver is.

I mean the fact is Dells sell a lot more then Macs, so they must be superior *roll eyes*. Hondas sell a lot more then porche, so they must be superior. Personally, Id say the apple folks should stick to the ploy that they are the luxurious high class minority that is just better then anyone else for mystical reasons.

Otherwise on a lighter note, congrats to apple. At the least this will open up competition.

"And I guess its also ok to spout off the word "inferior" for who knows what reason.

All it does is give me the mindset that the apple zealots are simply more pompous, rather then the mindset that apple makes better products."

And if your automatic default mindset is that Apple couldn't conceivably offer superior products than naturally you would adopt the mindset that supports your bias which is that Mac users must then be pompous. You expose more of yourself by making such a statement rather than exposing others biases as you hoped to do.


"Bleh "genuine" superiority. Hah I said I like the iRiver better. I own both of them, most people who have Ipods dont even KNOW what an Iriver is."

I have used both and I said I like the iPod better. Lets assume for just a second that your pompous remark is true and most iPod users didn't choose an iPod based on its merits. How does that support your argument that the iRiver is better? It doesn't. With that in mind, there are countless reviews you can find across the web that shows the iPod to be the better product.


"I mean the fact is Dells sell a lot more then Macs, so they must be superior *roll eyes*."

No, Dell sells more computers because the PC industry only has one way to differentiate itself and that is through price. Dell is consistently the company that can offer the lowest prices (or at least strip enough features from their computers to give you less and thus allow you to spend less) as compared to the rest of the PC world. When you combine this factor with the operating system that uses illegal business practices to retain its monopoly you have a major business opportunity... hence Dell's large sales.


"Hondas sell a lot more then porche, so they must be superior."

That analogy isn't right either because they're two totally different product groups. You might as well be comparing matchbox cars and full size cars.


"Personally, Id say the apple folks should stick to the ploy that they are the luxurious high class minority that is just better then anyone else for mystical reasons. "

Of course you would like that, because it supports your false argument that Macs supposedly have luxurious prices to match their luxurious computers. Yes, Macs are indeed higher quality computers, but they are not more expensive.

I would be nice if you didn't strive so hard to detract from Apple's greatest achievements so that those of us who want ballance don't have to go to the opposite end of the spectrum to defuse each of your comments and thus fuel the notion that somehow we are supposedly zealots.

There are hundreds of music player models available - most people buy iPods.
There's only one OS that comes pre-installed on new PCs - Windows. This is why it has a large share of the market, even though it isn't very secure or stable.

Do you see the difference? If there's anything that's not sound, it is your argument.

"The barrier to switching doesn't explain why they had Windows in the first place."

That's easy.
Windows was already on the computer when they bought it. They didn't choose Windows. Windows was chosen for them.


"According to faulty logic on one side it's because they're sheep."

A consumer could genuinely be labeled a sheep if given choice of OSes on their PC and they stayed with Windows anyways. But Microsoft used illegal business practices to restrict choice from occuring.

"That's easy.
Windows was already on the computer when they bought it. They didn't choose Windows. Windows was chosen for them."

But hey people chose Dells over Macs. Face the facts. Greater Market Share != Superior product.

People chose Dells over Macs because Dells allow you to buy less and spend less. PCs have a very genuine asset that (so far) Apple hasn't felt inclinded to match and that is PCs allow you to buy less and spend less. Apple May typically cost less when compared with comperably equipped PCs, but they also require you to buy more, so you will end up paying more. THAT is why Dell sells more PCs than Apple.

"It was inevitable that Ipod sales would increase sales for macs. This begs" 'what happens when Ipods are no longer the big sellers?'"

How about they continue to make great products that show people that Apple continues to make great products and services.


"It will be hard for Apple to even reach 5 percent of new system sales in the US."

I'm not so sure about that, they're pretty darn close right now at 4.5%.


"Worldwide, it will never happen"

You guys also said that Apple could never gain market share... let alone grow so significatly faster than the PC marketplace as they have for the past 3 quarters.


"Linux will get bigger, and Ipod competitors will get bigger."

And Apple will get bigger and create an even better prodct to keep them ahead of the pack. They've been doing that throughout their history. Don't assume it will suddenly stop.


"Apple is desperately trying to bring the Ipod to the next level, and Jobs knows that the way to do that is not with technology"

Oh, I'm surprised that you would say that considering the fact that they've invested so heavily in the iPod's technology. But then, you were just trolling weren't you.


"but with lock-in content contracts with the major players"

That's not something Apple controls but is mandated by those major players you mention. But then, I know you knew that and were just trolling.

Yes or no: Are people sheep just because they bought whats popular? No, of course not.

You seem to have a problem understand the word "trendy".

"Of or in accord with the latest fad or fashion: trendy clothes."

n. pl. trend·ies

"One who is drawn to and represents the latest trends"

So, YES, people are lemmings/sheep if they buy what is popular vs. buying on value, features, etc.

"You seem to have a problem understand the word "trendy". "

The big leap that your making... which coincidentally negates your argument is that you are assuming that they bought an iPod *because* its popular rather than because they consider it to be the best product available to them after comparing the alternatives.

I can conceivably be totally oblivious to the iPod craze, compare all the options that I have available to me and the choose the iPod based solely on its merits and therefore would not be following the crowd.

It frustrates me to see so many of you Apple detractors going to such lengths to find a reason for the iPod craze other than it is the best product on the market and is selling accordingly as a result of that.

So, YES, people are lemmings/sheep if they buy what is popular vs. buying on value, features, etc.

So people must be lemmings and sheep becuase they buy windows PCs... it is the most popular, yes.

People must be sheep for using linux over *BSD or Solaris because it is more popular, yes.

Begining to comprehend the ridiculousness of your basesless argument.

While I would agree that OS X needs more consistency... its not as if any other operating system offers more consistency. As bad off as OS X is in this regard the closest competitor (Windows) is light years away as far as consistency is concerned. And as far as Windows is... multiply that by 100 and thats where everything else on the market is at.

When people say that OS X needs more consistent behavior, what they're comparing it to is the Mac OS Pre OS X. Those were the glory days of UI consistency.

Some people wait all their lives for the right cult to come along.

some people live in a cult and call everybody else cult members or the opposite cult.