Linked by mjhi11 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 20:13 UTC
Apple I love OSNews, but it does seem like some of its editors enjoy just a little too much taking a good natured jab at Apple upon occasion (well, more like every chance that particular editor can get). I thought it time for a little good news and analysis about Apple that critics often overlook.
Permalink for comment 441552
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Kasi
by Kasi on Fri 17th Sep 2010 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kasi"
Member since:

"It's really frustrating that despite treating a laptop carefully and investing in proper cases, the last two $2100+ PC laptops have developed a variety of anomalies. One keyboard failed requiring a swap out. Another required a wireless adapter swap out.

The closing latch broke on one of them and the screen hinge on the other became loose so I was constantly re-adjusting the screen throughout the day."

Okay, this I can understand and agree with. It is frustrating to have extensive things break. In that regard yeah Apple build quality is very much ahead. Admittedly though thats not anything to do with the longevity of core functionality - ie utility as a computer.

I had an old G4 PowerBook that I kept around for 7 years. It still looked good so I never tossed it but it was far from useful for 5 of those years. In the first 2 years what was considered everyday computer changed and totally passed the system by. With 8mb of VRAM - youtube was a nonstarter, the upgraded 512mb of system RAM meant that by OS 10.3 iWork/iLife or Office were a lesson is pain for the hard drive. In the end I had a pretty looking machine that couldn't view youtube, or any other flash enabled site easily, was slow for productivity, and in general was only tolerable for web browsing. So my impression would be the functional life of powerbook was really 2 years with 5 years extra of looking nice but not doing much.

"Screen quality compared to the PC laptops is superior."

I would be careful with this one. Referring to resolution or backlighting it is very common for Dell, Vaio, HP, etc to offer a larger range of resolutions per size laptop in both CCFL or LED. On Dell's site presently 1920x1080 is available on 15" and 17", and 1600x1400 on 13" - if you look at the business notebooks, then 1920x1080 is available on 13" as well. This is not the case with Apple's offerings the size defines the resolution. When it comes to "picture quality" Apple and everyone else uses TN panels (there are a few sites to google showing the actual LG/Samsung panels each has) so viewing angle, color parallax, are all basically crap compared to both an SPVA HD TV or an IPS monitor.

"Well, I take issue with the statement that Apple's prior choice of processors demonstrates a lack of interest in the desktop."

Actually thats not what I said, I meant that the vendor producing Apple's processors had little-to-no interest in advancing performance for the desktop market. This is not to say that PPC is bad processor, its a very nice architecture. However optimizations for the desktop market were never focused on by IBM or Motorola and that hampered performance starting with introduction of the P3 and continued to get worse. At the end of the day, a nice architecture with a disinterested manufacturer is not as useful (and arguable was becoming more and more visibly detrimental to Apple) than an inelegant architecture that has a manufacturer that wants that market.

"Well, Boot Camp has everything to do with Apple. They very well could have continued to "ignore" Windows..."

We may be discussing different points here, but as far as I can tell BootCamp is no more than tool for dual booting. Furthermore, if BootCamp did not exist - Apple would be unable to "ignore" windows as dual booting is trivial to do through EFI itself for windows or with any modern boot manager like grub/lilo for linux. The ability to run other operating systems on Apple's Intel hardware did not take any extra effort on Apple's part to allow. However it would have taken effort to prevent - and thats why I feel its a bit silly to praise Apple for letting the machine hardware do what its designed to do.

"But they did the "right thing" recognizing that it was in the best interests of their customers to take advantage of the Intel platform and allow their customers to run both Windows and OS X, a rather enlightened position in my view."

I'm a bit surprised you have this view coming from a PC background. One of the basic tenets that the IBM clone industry embraced very early was the idea of open hardware is which any software could be written to use a piece of hardware. The notion that only certain software should be allowed to run on a specific machine irrespective of technical feasibility was part of the driving force for IBM clones to become successful. So hearing a PC person say it was an enlightened position for the vendor to let me use the hardware I purchased/own to run any software I want is very scary.

What is worse is that this mentality is being engendered in the nascent smart phone market. Where locked down operating systems that don't allow you to control a device that you supposedly bought and own (rather than licensed) are becoming the rule.

"Let's be fair here, if any company can be accused of forcing proprietary technologies upon their customers, it's Microsoft."

I'm inclined to say two wrongs don't make a right. However Apple limits choice as well. A clear example is in the device world. Zune vs iPad/iPod. The Zune sync's with windows media player. However it is also possible to sync both windows media player or the Zune with other third party products. Apple's iPad/iPod they sync with iTunes anything else is not easy to do and certainly not encouraged or condoned. More specific,(and abstract) to OS X would be the blatant ignoring of BSD configuration files for binary proprietary files that are not user accessible.

"Each time I've abandoned those efforts, either because of dissatisfaction with the complexity of getting Windows Media Center up and running, or DNLA issues getting my systems to recognize media on other machines, poorly written PVR software, video capture drivers and cheaply built hardware. And talk about the frustration factor, try going a day using your Media Center PC without a popup notifying you of a critical security update, a critical virus update, or the maintenance that you have to do regularly to keep the system performing well enough to serve up media."

I have a great suggestion for you, Netgear Stora. Its a NAS that includes a DLNA server. There is no setup as its a turnkey device (unless you want to play with it over SSH but that is totally optional), it shares your media that place/link into a particular folder across the network to any DLNA client. There are no pop-ups mid-movie, there are issues about underlying operating system software or having to use certain programs. This is the strength of having a large and open standard to build around. Not all the advancements have to trickle slowly from one source and you are not tied to a specific product. If the NAS isn't for you then there are DLNA devices from HP, Western Digital for clients and about 4 different DNLA servers for windows, linux and the BSDs and Apple. The idea is that there is a lot of choice out there by trying to force the one Apple vision.

Reply Parent Score: 1