Apple is already gearing up for a major marketing campaign for the holidays, and if they’re able to ramp up demand, and then deliver the system when they say it will be delivered, it could trump Microsoft in a way that Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs would crow about for years.
Can the Mac Counter Windows Vista?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
nah, not really – the hardware is too expensive
I wonder who modded this down, it is not insulting, trolling or anything.
In fact it is true. Mac will continue as underdog for its prices and its non-flexible nature. This will continue if they don’t change their policy even if they start making gold plated OSX packages.
while i don’t agree with what you said, i do find it repugnant that someone would mod your comment down. it wasn’t a troll or flame bait in the least. you were expressing your opinion in a clear way and i appreciate that.
my opinion is that the mac platform will continue as an underdog due to the fact that OSX won’t be licensed to other computer makers. i won’t pretend to know whats best for apple, but microsofts dominance lies in the fact that any hardware maker can install it, and its relatively easy to use.
i find their prices to be pretty damned good for what i get in return.
ymmv.
And what makes MacOS good is that they control everything from hardware to software. They don’t have test millions of possible combinaison of hardware , they have a few configurations, they do a lot of testing on them, while Microsoft can’t do all those tests for Windows. That’s why I think it’s best for Apple to lock MacOSX to their plateform.
Too expensive?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33576
Macs are cheaper than Dells. And I’m a linux guy. I just pay attention. Though that may very well have changed, but that is not an old article.
Considering the lack of a need for security software, macs are definately cheaper.
Nice. They slap a 3 year warranty on the Dell and then leave the Mac Pro at the standard warranty…. Although the Mac Pro has a better video card. Still not a very good comparison. It should have been the same warranty and graphics cards on both.
The Dell has the better card, and I’m not sure if I’d be worried about the warranty with exception to the hard drive.
It just depends on how you look at it.
Edited 2006-08-26 21:29
Nice. They slap a 3 year warranty on the Dell and then leave the Mac Pro at the standard warranty….
Apple care for MacPro systems is $249. That still makes the MacPro $200+ cheaper in 2 out of the 3 configs in the inquirer article.
Macs are cheaper than Dells.
Really? Check the diff between graphics price. And watch 3 year guarantie. While Dell ships with Quadro, Apple ships with basic entrance GT NVidia.
Considering the lack of a need for security software, macs are definately cheaper.
Again… Really? You can’t put for example Linux or Solaris on Dell?
Yeah, I noticed the better card. However, I was looking at the pricetags. The professional video card is aimed at a very specific class/type of user.
———Again… Really? You can’t put for example Linux or Solaris on Dell?————
You can, but that sort of defeats the purpose. You’d be better served just building from scratch.
Why pay the microsoft tax if you’re not gonna use the microsoft OS?
“Why pay the microsoft tax if you’re not gonna use the microsoft OS?”
Uhm, return the software then? as per EULA
Which is like…impossible. Check this story for example: http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html
an 8 year old story…
I’ve heard of several having no issues
You can, but that sort of defeats the purpose. You’d be better served just building from scratch.
Why pay the microsoft tax if you’re not gonna use the microsoft OS?
Well, I’ll give you a clue. 3-year on-site warranty? Much more important factor than graphic card. I can only say good things about Dell service when on-site warranty is included and bad about any Apple warranty. And I’ve got enough personal experiences about both.
BS
First of all you’re comparing Mac Pro’s which is expensive in itself – no matter what the compitition offers.
Secondly, with vista (and _all_ other OS’es) I get a choice of HW manufactures. With Apple I get zilch.
The only mac that is even close to cheap is the minis, that are sorely in need of an update (should be comming soon).
The iMac and Mac pro are waay expensive for ordinary people, especially considering whats actually inside (the iMacs still start with 512MB ram !)
You seem to consider computers as hardware only but the fact is that macs ship with very good apps wich is clearly not wath you have with most low-end or mid-range PCs. Good OS and good apps are valuable for computer manufacturers and Apple sales “computers” (understand a complete solution) not harware nor software (I mean for other platform that their).
If you don’t like their solution, just don’t it, its that simple. But as someone said above, they sale macs like they never did and tends to prove that their “solution” is appealing to customers more and more everyday.
This isn’t fanboyism but pragmatism.
“You seem to consider computers as hardware only”
Well duh, thats becase a computer is just that.
When I install linux on it, its still a Mac. It might not be the Mac platform, but its still a Mac.
You seem to consider computers as hardware only”
Well duh, thats becase a computer is just that.
Okk, now I understand ….
(lol)
I wouldn’t buy Dells, either!
Seriously: Are Macs actually less expensive by the time you’ve added all the software you would use with them? Last time I checked, which was, admittedly, a few years ago, the answer was “no”.
I can easily get a decent PC setup for $500. Can I do that with a Mac?
I’m sure I can get a decent PC laptop for well under $1000.
you can get a dell for 300$, you can’t get a mac for this price
You can get a ridicolous Dell for 300$.
You can get NO ridicolous Macs at all: dignity is important.
The difference is dignity: someone has it, someone not.
with the ridicolous dell at 300$, we can go on the web, email, writing text…… enough for majority
if you buy with dignity, i will surely not get a mac
moron mentality, you are surely an american?
Nope, poster can’t be American. Americans misspell ridiculous “rediculous”, not “ridicolous”.
Have you ever bought a $300 Dell?
Has any OSNews reader ever bought a $300 Dell?
I have, for somebody else. It was actually only $293.00. It was a complete piece of crap too.
I’ve never bought a Mac that was a piece of crap though. They’ve all been great. I’m willing to pay more for that (although having priced out similar systems, they aren’t really more).
yeah my dad did and I had to re-install the OS multiple times and now it sits in the corner with a fan problem and it won’t boot now. I don’t have the time to mess with it right now. It’s a piece of junk compared to the Apple(s), Compaqs, and hps that I’ve purchased.
I’m an american and really like my expensive mac and expensive european beer.
Edited 2006-08-27 19:44
The evidence put forward by people who believe Macs are (now) cheaper than Dells does not in fact show what they say it does. The argument used is of the form: one gull is darker grey than one pigeon. Therefore gulls in general are darker than pigeons in general.
The method used is to take a given Mac configuration and then match it exactly. It usually costs about the same or a bit more. Ha! say the advocates, you see, this proves Macs cost less.
It doesn’t show that at all. It shows that if you want this particular configuration you can buy it cheaper from Apple. What if you just want to buy a computer? Will you generally get better price performance by buying a Mac? No you will not.
Here is how to do it, which is the way real customers work when buying things.
Method A is, take a spec and find suppliers. As long as you do not want an all-in-one, or a tiny AOpen style form factor, or two Core Duos and nothing else worth having (a true Lada with a Porsche engine), you will find that most name brand PC suppliers deliver you a better machine at a lower price.
Method B is to take a price and find suppliers to it. Take lets say $1,000. See what you get for it. Again, if you don’t insist on Apple specs, and why on earth would you, you’ll get more for your money from name brand PC suppliers.
And your brain will not be contorted by fake logic as you do it.
lol your Method A is just a joke.
While I agree for the Method B, Method A is ruled by Apple: you will only find that most name brand PC suppliers will deliver fake of Apple’s hardware at an expensive price.
It is an faulty comparison. Not only because the systems have different specs and different support span, but also because both are overkill for most users.
What i’m missing in Apple hardware and what will keep me from switching until they have something like that to offer would be a extendendable System like the G5 tower but without the ridiculous hardware overkill, in the price range up to a max of 1200$… and don’t even start talking about an iMac, that thing is no alternative for me, not only because it isn’t extendendable but also because i have a nice 30″ TFT and don’t fancy myself wasting place with a second display that i don’t use anyway.
Not only Apple hardware is no more expensive than competitors like DELL or Sony but with a mac you have iApps that are priceless for windows users because they have no equivalent softs in term of easiness, integration and overall performance/reliability.
By the time Vista Rev.A will ship (with inerent bugs) Apple will release its sixth major OS X realese and will present a very performant alternative to systems such as DELL/Windows IMHO.
Macbooks, Macmini sales for example tends to confirm this trend and Apple never sold as much hardware than nowadays. With my mac mini I run seamlessly OS X and Linux (I don’t use Microsoft products for years) can you do this with any other (and more pricey) hardware ?
Apple has done very well with the intel move and now, for the very first time in its existence, macs can compete directly with the best hardware/software vendors and they tend to do it right.
“Not only Apple hardware is no more expensive than competitors like DELL or Sony but with a mac you have iApps that are priceless for windows users because they have no equivalent softs in term of easiness, integration and overall performance/reliability.”
iApps are not part of a Mac, you have to purchase them adding to the total price.
I am sure you can find comparable software for Vista. (If MS actually made these programs, they’d probably be sued for abusing their monopoly
)
“By the time Vista Rev.A will ship (with inerent bugs) Apple will release its sixth major OS X realese and will present a very performant alternative to systems such as DELL/Windows IMHO. ”
Right, because Microsoft never made other Major Windows releases… and each of the OS X releases were “Major”
“Apple has done very well with the intel move and now, for the very first time in its existence, macs can compete directly with the best hardware/software vendors and they tend to do it right.”
No they cant, you’re blinded by something.
I can easily find HW that is faster and have better performance, from most of the 52746532 HW makers for Windows OS’es. It doesn’t look as sleek as a Mac, granted but its still a lot cheaper.
No they cant
What a good argument…
you’re blinded by something.
This argument is even better…
I can easily find HW that is faster and have better performance, from most of the 52746532 HW makers for Windows OS’es. It doesn’t look as sleek as a Mac, granted but its still a lot cheaper.
Then buy your greeat “bang for buck”harware with your useless apps and be happy (and learn to give arguments)
“Then buy your greeat “bang for buck”harware with your useless apps and be happy”
I am… which is what most other people are doing… At least judging from all the commercials I see. I’ve yet to a see a mac advert neither on TV or in the weekly truckload of adverts dropped in the mailbox. Mind you I am not an american, which I understand has a greater percentage.
Since the dawn of time, basically, The Mac has been superior in every possible conceivable way – at least thats what all the Mac users have been saying – yet somehow it’s still a minority. Thats a pretty rock solid fact. I’m sure in 10 years time we’ll still be told that Macs are far superior, and it’ll still be a minority compared to Windows.
btw, next time you try to throw mud, dont chop up sentences for your own benefit, its childish.
Edited 2006-08-26 22:18
Since the dawn of time, basically, The Mac has been superior in every possible conceivable way – at least thats what all the Mac users have been saying – yet somehow it’s still a minority. Thats a pretty rock solid fact. I’m sure in 10 years time we’ll still be told that Macs are far superior, and it’ll still be a minority compared to Windows.
Ferrari and Rolls Royce owners are a minority and they own superior car. I really don’t understand your point here.
Product quality and market share are completely no related specially in the software industry.
btw, next time you try to throw mud, dont chop up sentences for your own benefit, its childish.
Still your strong arguments….
“Ferrari and Rolls Royce owners are a minority and they own superior car. I really don’t understand your point here. ”
The _point_ – should you care to actually read and think, instead of dissing – is that Ferrari and Rolls Royce will never become mainstream, much like Mac.
You know – the point of the whole article…
btw, next time you try to throw mud, dont chop up sentences for your own benefit, its childish.
Still your strong arguments….
Hey! Stop making me have to stick up for Windows users!
iApps are not part of a Mac, you have to purchase them adding to the total price.
It’s really helpful, when entering a debate, to know what you’re talking about. So lets, see, the Mac Mini’s product page says:
“Mac mini comes with an incredible bundle of Universal applications that run on both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs:
* • iLife ’06”
How about that, it comes with the i apps. How about the Macbook?
“MacBook comes with an incredible bundle of Universal applications that run on both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs:
* • iLife ’06”
Yup, comes with that too. I’ll leave it to you to look at the product pages for the other Mac’s so you can learn for yourself that the i apps, are in fact, part of a Mac. They come with the computer, you don’t need to spend a dime extra to get them.
“Certain Macs come with iLife” doesn’t exactly equate to “Macs come with the i apps”, as there are iApps that don’t come with Macs, like iWorks.
As for iLife, it comes with certain Macs, but it doesn’t come with the OS. Meaning, that if you already have a Mac and upgrade to Leopard, Leopard will not come with iLife 07, you’ll have to buy that separately.
Lastly, PC OEMs bundle iLife equivalents, so there’s not much difference (except iLife apps are better integrated with each other; but on the other hand, I think some apps bundled by PC OEMs are better than their iLife equivilents (e.g. I think MyDVD is better than iDVD)).
“Certain Macs come with iLife” doesn’t exactly equate to “Macs come with the i apps”,
Would you like me to paste the product page snippets that show that every other Mac comes with iLife as well?
as there are iApps that don’t come with Macs, like iWorks.
iWorks isn’t an app it’s the product name of the bundle of Pages and Keynote and (if their names don’t give it away) they aren’t iApps.
As for iLife, it comes with certain Macs, but it doesn’t come with the OS. Meaning, that if you already have a Mac and upgrade to Leopard, Leopard will not come with iLife 07, you’ll have to buy that separately.
You didn’t say it didn’t come with OS X. You specifically said that the iApps don’t come with a Mac and thus you need to add them to the price of the machine. That is 100% factually incorrect as anyone can verify by looking at the product pages at http://store.apple.com.
Lastly, PC OEMs bundle iLife equivalents, so there’s not much difference (except iLife apps are better integrated with each other; but on the other hand, I think some apps bundled by PC OEMs are better than their iLife equivilents (e.g. I think MyDVD is better than iDVD)).
Lastly that is entirely not the point. You said Macs don’t come with the iApps, they are an extra cost. That is factually incorrect. You’d be much better off admitting that you’re wrong now and moving on.
And really, what idiot modded you up when you’re basing your entire comment on factually incorrect information?
Looking at this thread again, it appears that I was incorrect and it was MollyC the Microsoft apologist replying, not the original poster. So I apologize to the original poster for thinking that they were continuing down the path of posting factually incorrect information. That MollyC is posting factually incorrect information doesn’t surprise me at all.
Edited 2006-08-27 05:49
“Looking at this thread again, it appears that I was incorrect and it was MollyC the Microsoft apologist replying, not the original poster. So I apologize to the original poster for thinking that they were continuing down the path of posting factually incorrect information. That MollyC is posting factually incorrect information doesn’t surprise me at all.”
What factually incorrect info did I post? That iWork is an iApp? Is there some official definition of iApp? I used multiple search engines to search for ‘iApp’, and the first entry is for “iApp Server for FileMaker” (http://macweb.com/iApp/). I also did a search for “iApp” at apple.com, and the only reference I found was in the description of the “Big Bang Board Games” third party app. Apple has no official definition of “iApp”. iWork is an Apple software package that starts with ‘i’, so I consider it an iApp. You don’t, so what?
So putting your overly-pedantic point aside, what factually incorrect info did I post? I posted that iLife comes with certain Macs, but not the OS, so when upgrading to Leopard, you wouldn’t automatically get iLife 07. And I posted that iWork doesn’t come with Macs. Are those not factual statements?
Or are you upset that I said “certain” Macs come with iLife rather than “all” Macs? Even if it is “all” Macs, my statement was still technically factual.
(But I was basing it on my 2002 PowerBook. It didn’t come with iLife (it came with iTunes, an old version of iPhoto and old version of iMovie; iLife at the time had the current verions of iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD (Apple hadn’t bought GarageBand yet); I think only iMacs and iBooks came with the full iLife in those days, but I’m not sure).)
Oh, and regarding the name-calling, how old are you, twelve? My post wasn’t the least bit hostile. Go back and read it, if you will. I didn’t even take a definitive position on the Mac vs PC or OSX vs Windows debate. So I don’t see ow my post warranted your hostility. If you felt I was incorrect, you could’ve corrected me without the immature namecalling.
Edited 2006-08-27 07:20
What factually incorrect info did I post? That iWork is an iApp?
The iApps are the apps that come with iLife. And, as I pointed out in my previous post, none of the apps that come with iWork have an i in their name.
You did, however say “Certain Macs come with iLife” which is factually incorrect, all Macs come with iLife. The fact that I only copied the bit from two out of the five product pages is irrelevant, as is your woefully out of date knowledge of Macs.
I posted that iLife comes with certain Macs, but not the OS, so when upgrading to Leopard, you wouldn’t automatically get iLife 07.
First, that’s irrelevant to my post. I never said anything about what you get with Leopard, I said what you get when you buy a Mac. Which was the point, the original poster said that you need to pay extra when you buy a Mac to get the iApps. That’s incorrect. Then you come along to pile onto the factually incorrect information. Maybe it’s time to fast forward from 2002 to 2006? Or, at the least, stop proving your ignorance by displaying it to the world on this thread? But, hey, even if you want to go down that path, OS X and iLife together are still cheaper than the upgrade version of XP Pro. We can throw in iWork too and it’s only $10 more than the upgrade version of XP Pro. So who cares if they happen to come in seperate boxes when you’re upgrading if they’re still cheaper than upgrading Microsoft’s products?
I posted that iLife comes with certain Macs,
Unless you redefine “certain” to mean “all” then there’s a factually incorrect comment.
And I posted that iWork doesn’t come with Macs
Which is true, but iWork isn’t even an app much less an iApp.
Even if it is “all” Macs, my statement was still technically factual.
Perhaps, assuming that English isn’t your first language and you honestly don’t know that “certain” doesn’t mean “all”.
Oh, and regarding the name-calling, how old are you, twelve?
What name did I call you? “Microsoft apologist”? That’s not calling you name that’s giving you a title. Based on your posting history here, I don’t think anyone would say I’m wrong either.
Edited 2006-08-27 07:22
So putting your overly-pedantic point aside, what factually incorrect info did I post? I posted that iLife comes with certain Macs, but not the OS, so when upgrading to Leopard, you wouldn’t automatically get iLife 07. And I posted that iWork doesn’t come with Macs. Are those not factual statements?
Or are you upset that I said “certain” Macs come with iLife rather than “all” Macs? Even if it is “all” Macs, my statement was still technically factual.
The fact is *all* Macs today come with iLife. Just saying that “certain” Macs come with it may be “technically factual” (subset of macs, etc), it is still misleading. All Macs come with iLife, period.
You do not get an upgrade to iLife when you upgrade your operating system. How hard is that to understand? iLife and Mac OS X are completely different entities. Do you expect to get a free upgrade to Office when you upgrade Windows? Basing your argument on 4 year old information isn’t wise.
eh the hardware for a brand new commercially rig is NOT any more expensive now.
BUT the reason Mac can’t counter Windows though is because of MSFT’s monopoly on education. Somewhere years ago Apple dropped the ball and lost their stranglehold on education and MSFT took over. As a result parents sending their kids off to college see the requirements for what their kids will need and what do they see? “Windows XP, MSFT Office 2000+…” and so on.
And why does this happen? Because MSFT cut agreements to provide site licenses and heavy discounts on the college computers provided the “computer class” teaches MSFT Office instead of what they should teach (and used to) “concepts of Office software” in which students learn how documents are to be prepared as opposed to how MSFT Office prepares documents – the distinction seems subtle but its major because its a shift in how one thinks – makes them a drone instead of a thinking person. Don’t believe me? Talk to some of these kids, they even look and sound like drones when it comes to these topics.
> eh the hardware for a brand new commercially rig is
> NOT any more expensive now.
yes, if you want to buy *total* overkill. Where is the alternative to a 500-1000$ PC? The iMac? Why would i pay the “crappy tiny Monitor included”-tax when i already have a nice big TFT? Why would i buy an Mac Mini which isn’t extensible at all and might even get damaged when i try to open it? Has Apple never heard of maintainability?
> And why does this happen? Because MSFT cut agreements
> to provide site licenses and heavy discounts on the
> college…
If that was true, then why is Apples marketshare even smaller in germany? At college we have quite a nice selection of hardware from Sun to Dell, most workstations equipped with linux? Giving your homework in an non-portable format is even frowned upon at our college and might even result in less points… still we have 5% Apple and 5%Linux in general use.
I know i would try an Mac if they would serve the market i’m interested in and that would be iMac class Hardware in an extensible form without a crappy integrated Monitor… but surprise, they don’t offer such a thing so i’m not going to buy Hardware that doesn’t fit my needs.
yes, if you want to buy *total* overkill. Where is the alternative to a 500-1000$ PC? The iMac? Why would i pay the “crappy tiny Monitor included”-tax when i already have a nice big TFT? Why would i buy an Mac Mini which isn’t extensible at all and might even get damaged when i try to open it? Has Apple never heard of maintainability?
Most users do not have a huge TFT monitor lying about. Hence the 17″ – 20″ monitor of the iMac works. Most users do not ever open up their PCs. If you’re really in to tinkering with your computer, the Macs are definitely not for you. All Macs have hard to open cases, apart from the Powermac, which is made with easy access to the internals in mind.
I don’t think it is true that it is seldom to have an existing Monitor. Most of my Monitors have been used through 2-3 computer generations. I don’t think it is smart to integrate two expensive pieces of equipment when it is likely that one of them dies before the other is too outdated for general use.
I’m curious how many other people would have the same preference in hardware as i do. Why is Apple ignoring that part of the market?
Can vista counter the Mac? Vista is in pretty much every way playing catch up to OSs like MacOS or a more advanced Distro like Suse.
Edited 2006-08-26 21:20
Vista doesn’t HAVE to counter the Mac. For linux, mac os x and others it is an ever uphill climb to counter the market share that windows already has.
———-Vista doesn’t HAVE to counter the Mac.———–
Sure it does, just like it does to Linux.
For those who want the latest and greatest, MS can’t offer it. The superior computing experience is found on either a linux or mac base.
MS’ marketshare is due to their longer establishment in the market, their marketing campaigns, OEM deals, third party/vendor, and well known market bullying.
*NOT* because their OS is superior. The most talked about feature of vista is arguably the 3d interface. Linux and Mac already have that.
Linux has a 3D interface (With poor driver support) and Mac just has Desktop Compositing (Tear free drawing, rendering thumbnails of Windows for Expose, etc..)
A 3d interface not only with poor driver support but also with a big “beta” attached to it and yet a long road to something stable und usefull. Please guys, stop pretending we are already there… you might not recognize, but creating expectations we can’t meet yet in people having a look at linux is not a very smart idea, since it will just create a *very bad* and painfull crash with reality for them.
That was exactly my first experience… expectations that where raised where “Linux never crashes, is faster than Windows, easyer to use and almost bugfree”
So back then i tryed every linuxdistro i could find to decide which i would want. I tryed Suse, Mandrake, Fedora, Debian and Gentoo.
Debians installer always already crashed without any comment when i tryed to install it.
Gentoo was way to complicated for me back then.
My experiences with Suse, Mandrake and Fedora where exactly the same:
It was quite easy to get an basic install done, but above that getting your hardware installed properly like wlan, soundcard and such was *major* pain.
It wasn’t anywhere near the speed of Windows. Apps as tiny as notepad or calculator took up to 10 seconds to start, boot time was a couple of times of what windows required to start.
What was worse was that i found in halve an houre of using each hose three distros i found more bugs then i found in Windows in years! The system did not crash with something comparable to a bluescreen (which i almost never encountered in windows… but maybe i’m just lucky) but stoped responding, which i would not consider to be better.
So what is the point of my rant? Don’t grow false expectations! Nowadays most of my Boxes run Linux exclusively but that would nearly never happened, because the false expectations raised by zealots and back then believed by me created a *huge* disapointment when i first tryed it.
That almost made me drop the entire thing.
Linux has true qualitys, don’t make some up that it doesn’t (yet) has.
Is there any product whose proponents don’t exaggerate its capabilities?
It’s not as if Microsoft’s marketing over Windows is any more realistic. Apple? Can’t say, but doubt it.
Here’s a piece of advice: Don’t listen to fanboys. Linux has less bugs, but is not easier to use. And while Linux is faster now, back then Windows was. If a piece of software sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
“Here’s a piece of advice: Don’t listen to fanboys.”
…from either side.
Well, that is wise advice.
Still, boot time and application start on my fastest Linux box (Pentium M 1,6GHz) are very slow. So i wouldn’t advertise with that, but i tend to say, it is fast enough. If people arguement with it i ask them if paying 140€ for XP home is worth to them having smallish apps start fast. On big apps the difference doesn’t seem to be very noticeable.
My understanding is that even if the Apple took only 1 per cent more of the total PC market, they would be making shedloads of cash and piling on board a huge increase in their userbase. So Apple do not need to start “rivalling” Microsoft in percentage terms to do extremely well.
However, my impression is that Apple is all about command and control of every single thing, as well as an exclusive image. These things don’t go with mass-market, much as you’d buy fine handmade chocolate from a special shop and not from a supermarket.
So I doubt the Mac can “counter” Vista in the sense of rival it and grab, say, 20-30 per cent of the total market. I sometimes wonder if Apple would even want to, given their image and apparent lack of interest in the enterprise market. But Apple is big enough and successful enough to leave no one scouting for a new PC in any doubt at all that a highly attractive and user-friendly alternative exists to the Beast. I’d be surprised if a lot of folks didn’t take up the offer.
IMO, Apple is not interested in a 20% market share any more than BMW is interested in 20% of the car market share. It’s no longer a cachet symbol if everyone has one, and you can’t then command higher profit margins. Apple is not just about hardware–they’re appealing to consumers taste for style as well, just like clothing brand names do. I think Apple would rather have a small market share with larger margins then a large market share with smaller margins, which is just more work and headache and no longer so cool.
Having said that, Apple’s strategy could be changing since the iPod is maintstream and they have lowered their prices to be pretty competitive with Dell and others. In fact, the MacBook is very competitvely priced compared to offerings from other companies (not the MacBook Pro which caters more to the “I have to have the coolest” or “I am a professional” and “I have money to spend” crowd). Not to mention their new Mac tower which is cheaper than Dell’s for the same specs. (Yes, I know you can get a $400 computer from Dell, but that’s not the crowd that Apple is interested in selling to, because frankly, you can hardly make any money on those PCs.)
As a mac user I would say no… the mac wont counter Vista.
Why?
bussiness reason: MS have a bussines roadmap which multi million $ companies rely on, Apple do but nobody outside of Apple HQ knows it… strike one no big names bussiness will follow a hidden agenda.
Hardware price: guess what the new mac pro is cheaper than a dell…. have you checked their other hardware? I am in the market for replacing my broken powerbook and at the moment I will be buying a dell, I have price both laptops up and here in the UK the dell is a lot more cheaper! at this point of time im leaving apple because they still have the premium price on the rest of their products.
All in one hardware software solution: this does not work for the mass market. Can you honestly believe if apple become number one pc maker that MS will stop windows? Do you think dell, hp, compaq and so on will throw in their laptop ideas and make keyboards for rest of their lives? Apple needs to release OS x on all hardware if it even begins to think about becoming an alternative OS. The lock to to hardware approach simply doesnt work (unless of cause its an ipod but even then its on iTunes for both Windows and OS x).
OS updates: they are expensive for what a Windows user will call a sp. You can buy a copy of windows and it will be supported for years and years with no extra price. OS x a new version out every 2 years and then its almost like all previous releases are then unsupported with one or 2 security updates here and there. But if you want a new version of safari or mail you better upgrade the whole OS!! (oh please!)
iapps? sure they are great, iphoto is very good but there also alternative solutions out there that are just as good. Also the number one iapp myth is that they are NOT free. Google will give you free copies of picasa all the time, apple will charge you money to upgrade to full screen editing etc.
No crashes? Os X does crash believe it or not… XP Pro edition is rock solid and try and crash windows 2003 server. MS do make stable products that work on more than one hardware config.
Virus? Welcome to real life, sure OS x is more secure than windows but if it got 50% market share expect some more conflicts, OS X is NOT immune so be warned.
The list goes on… yes I made a lot of apple users angry, hey i am a mac user. Its a superb system but its not going to beat vista. I have been a big fan of apple for years and years but 10.5 just hasnt really grab me yet. Windows is a superb OS that does everything OS X does and some more.. if MS dont do it then there will be a third party developer who does. That my 2 cents… before anybody quotes me out of anger just remember i am a mac user who just looking at it realistically instead of being a fanboy who OS maker is never ever wrong…
Edited 2006-08-26 22:08
Sorry, but I don’t fully agree with youu and let me tell you why:
bussiness reason: MS have a bussines roadmap which multi million $ companies rely on, Apple do but nobody outside of Apple HQ knows it… strike one no big names bussiness will follow a hidden agenda.
Companies are very interested in alternatives for server and desktop (see linux for instance) I personnaly work for company that was windows and we have 50% of our servers base running OSS, we increased performance while decreasing the cost. OS X and OS X servers are cheaper than their microsoft conterparts and they have a chance to gently increase their market share.
OS updates: they are expensive for what a Windows user will call a sp. You can buy a copy of windows and it will be supported for years and years with no extra price. OS x a new version out every 2 years and then its almost like all previous releases are then unsupported with one or 2 security updates here and there. But if you want a new version of safari or mail you better upgrade the whole OS!! (oh please!)
For the last OS X versions I paid more or less (a few more in reality) the same price than a single license of windows xp pro while I have system features and facilities that simply don’t exist in windows.
iapps? sure they are great, iphoto is very good but there also alternative solutions out there that are just as good. Also the number one iapp myth is that they are NOT free. Google will give you free copies of picasa all the time, apple will charge you money to upgrade to full screen editing etc.
Just give your list of iApps alternatives ???
Now are those apps working together ???
Are those apps as simple/powerfull as iApps ???
How much do you pay them ???
Honestly GarageBand, iMovie are as great as iPhoto is.
No crashes? Os X does crash believe it or not… XP Pro edition is rock solid and try and crash windows 2003 server. MS do make stable products that work on more than one hardware config.
OS X crashes and windows xp is rock solid…. hum hum.
We have 300 windows clients and a dozen of server running win 2K3 and I wouldn’t call them rock solid, at least no more than any other major OS (including OS X).
Virus? Welcome to real life, sure OS x is more secure than windows but if it got 50% market share expect some more conflicts, OS X is NOT immune so be warned.
I agree but I would have added some simple fact such as:
How many windows virii, spywares on windows during 2005 ? A lot, indeed a human can’t count them all.
How many on OS X (no talking about prove of concept)
? Well… not a single one.
Facts are important sometimes.
“… XP Pro edition is rock solid and try and crash windows 2003 server. MS do make stable products that work on more than one hardware config.”
Okay, I’ll tell that one to my WinDump counterparts in the data center. They’ll get a good laugh.
Every Windows Mashine i stumbled upon that was prone to crashes was suffering from either someone “administrating” it *very* bad (and you can get an unstable linux or OS X if you try hard to do something realy dumb) or broken hardware. It doesn’t mean anything if a big number of identical mashines are making trouble, because some hardware out there is realy crappy stuff with bad condensators which die after a certain period of time.
At college, our Windows boxes (quite nice Dell mashines) run as stable as our Linux boxes (which run on the exact same hardware) and unix boxes (mostly sparcstations – though i have to admit that i never saw a sparcstation crash in my life), but then again, our admins aren’t retards.
“…from either someone “administrating” it *very* bad…”
I agree. In an academic environment you generally find a blend of people who have different skill sets as-well-as technologies.
Some are quite good at what they do SQL, software installs, hardware repair or maintenance, networking, etc. Generally these individuals are wearing two or three `hats` due to fiscal issues.
Our campus has a multitude of legacy systems and new. They range from *nix to 2k3 servers. Specifically I am responsible for *nix, BSD, Linux, and OSX servers as well as the Oracle servers. I just took over those last month.
The machines I’ve taken over last month, specifically the 2k3 Oracle servers, have been administered badly. Someone allowed McAffee to be installed over or onto the entire servers `not` excluding the databases.
I had to reboot the 2k3 server after a Thwate certificate update. As general practice, it’s good to reboot an NT 5.2 box every so often and there were issue in applying the certificate. Generally an easy procedure. Needless to say, McAffee had decided select all types of programs to quarantine. The programs on this server had been running in memory since March.
I had to rebuild the server from scratch since back ups would not assist me and the previous person who had this job has moved to Dubai. March was the date the 2k Oracle servers were updated to 2k3. However this altered McAffee to rip and shred this server I’ll never know. My job was to get this server back into production – not analyze the previous workers logic.
You tell me, was this a systems administrator or an operating system issue?
Sometimes the lines blur between “useless” and “overwhealmed” as-well-as “novice” and “experienced”.
Edited 2006-08-28 13:24
Probably a bit of both
I’m not saying Windows is supirior to anything but it is nowhere near as bad as many people claim (most of them through second hand claims).
But im very Happy with my XP Box, just as i’m very happy with my Suse Box. Of course i do pardon both of them some of their failures to be happy with them.
Win 2003 Server is a very good and stable OS. It’s done great at work on my Dell PowerEdge servers. The rest of MSFT’s OS’s (with the exception of Win 2000) do suck. But, give credit where it’s due. 2003 is rock solid.
Apple will maintain its users base just as it always have, Mac users just like things a bit different and this will keep them on the OSX platform.
Will OSX gain market share, some. But it won’t be a mass exodus, because its too big of a change. For 99% of businesses the cost of the PC is nothing, just a drop in the bucket and is depreciated anyway. The real cost is retraining all of the staff to use it. Everyone from the secretaries all the way to the help desk and sysadmins. all need to be retrained, sure its easier. But if everyone on the staff of a 10,000 person company requires just 10 hours of training to get up to speed with the OS, that is 100,000 hours, even if you just calculate at $10 an hour that is 1 million dollars. And most users that use the system for more than just typing email and surfing the web will need more than 10 hours to get up to speed, maybe it wont be in a classroom but it will be decreased productivity for months. In the age of cost cutting and outsourcing, its just not going to happen.
Yes viruses, worms, and spyware all abound on windows, But everyone is used to it, and no one has to get the bean counters to signoff the training expenses. For the next version of windows it will be a lot easier to approve retraining, its just business as usual, of course it may take a while to be adopted, but a huge marketing campain is wasted on the business world. You just need to focus on kids and home users, when the CEO has a Mac in his house and he likes it then maybe there will be one on his desk.
I don’t think IT can back door desktops, like in the early days of the PC, its just not worth effort to change. Sure servers can happen that way, but it just doesn’t effect the windows desktop.
I think apple really needs to market the mac os x and the new macs like never before, with vista being release next year and ms’s stronghold on the desktop market at 96%, shows that many still prefer to run the six year old windows xp, or older windows over the latest mac os x.with that in mind. apple really needs to reach the public with something big, big as their 1984 mac commercial era.
Edited 2006-08-26 22:44
Unfortunately, it will not stop vista, not because it is a bad platform, but because the choices of hardware are little, and it might not suit all other people.
Let’s take an example, I want a mac desktop without the full power of dual CPUs and Xeon brand, All I want is 1 core 2 Duo CPU with speed of 2.4GHz(E6600) and a plenty of place to add more hard disks, that simple; I end up finding nothing ( I was ready to pay 1500 for such a system ),but I found iMac that will force me to pay for the screen that comes integrated with it, I preffer to use mine with 23″ 1920x1200x32.
There are many other situations where hardware choices are limiting you to either buy overpowered and thus expensive or underpowered and thus slow or doesn’t meet expectation.
I also miss the the 12″ MacBook Pro which is the ultimate in portability, the current 13″ looks cheap and the keyboard is not as great as the Pro series.
Coming in second in the poll was “Spaces,” a way to simultaneously display and switch between applications, making a desktop look something like an actual, real-world desktop that has multiple file folders and documents open.
Sigh…
Pardon me while I roll my eyes. Vista will remain the dominant OS in the corporate world, because most businesses are committed to Microsoft via licensing agreements that are still in effect. Also, their perception is that it will be less expensive in hardware, software and training costs to go with Vista than to switch to either OSX or GNU/Linux.
Yes the mac can and has, but no it can’t right now because by margin Windows has the overall advantage.
In the long run I do believe Apple has the chance.
Apple continues to open itself to industry standards like Intel for one example and continues to improve OS X. Software writing(Motion, iApps) speed and innovation are on Apple’s side.
When Steve Jobs leaves the company…Apple will fall. The new executive will allow mac clones and ditch the Mac OS for Windows. They will hire a younger ‘Sculley’.
… by all of these incessant “Can [Fill-in-Alternative-OS-Name-Here] take over the Desktop” threads? I understand that people are interested in promoting alternatives but, seriously, despite the OSS community’s and Apple’s best efforts, desktop market share hasn’t changed significantly in recent years. There are many reasons for this…
1. First Mover Advantage – Microsoft has a huge entrenched base and is difficult to dislodge.
2. User Apathy – People don’t buy operating systems. They buy packaged computers with OSes already installed. Unless and until Dell, IBM, and all of the major vendors promote and sell Linux desktop machines, consumers just won’t care. And manufacturers have no incentive to make them care, as long as they’re already selling a product that people buy.
3. Driver Support – Following on the heels of user apathy is lack of driver support. Yes, Linux and OSX support a wide variety of hardware, but not nearly as much hardware as Windows. Hardware OEMs/IHVs just don’t make enough money on Linux and Apple currently to justify spending as many resources on Linux as they do on Windows. Can you blame them? If you were in their business, would you rather target 500 million Windows desktops — or perhaps 15 million Macs or perhaps 8 million Linux boxes?
4. Software Availability – Sure, there’s a bunch of free software available for ‘nix, but the availability for Windows dwarfs these platforms. Games? Not many. Financial software? Not much. Not to mention the mountain of data that people have already accumulated on their Windows PCs. Who’s going to pay to convert all of that data? Can it even BE converted? Some of the apps aren’t even being sold anymore. This is a serious platform lock. People aren’t inclined to upgrade all of their software and data investments simply because they can.
5. Training – It costs money for companies to retrain their employees and, despite the protestations that “it looks like Windows” and “even an idiot could run this”, the TCO for running alternate platforms matches or exceeds Windows, based on my experience, so this begs the question: Why bother?
6. Cost – The initial purchase price of a desktop OS simply isn’t a significant factor in its success or failure. Particularly since the cost of an OS is often incorporated into the cost of a new PC — so, to many users, it appears to be “free”, anyway.
I don’t see why Apple doesn’t sell the OS by itself. Hit Microsoft while they are down they could grab some market share. Jobs needs to loosen up.
Microsoft makes most of its profits vertically with Office, CRM, BackOffice, etc. Apple has gaps in the business model with offerings to make up for this dependency by the business markets.
Sell? you can’t gain market share selling an Operating system these days, you have to give it away for FREE.
Linux barely gains share and they give it away for free, and its a better solution.
Why on earth do people want OS X to run on every box under the sun? Esp. with a hint of Apple vs. MS.
We all don’t have the same tastes in wine, if at all.
Pricing
Anyone who wants something bad enough will work towards that, it’ll cost him/her; but if it’s not worth it to you then by all means pass it on and do with what you decided upon. Do you / Did you really want something or are you looking for handouts?
It’s like saying I want a Lambo but I don’t want to earn/spend the money nor do i want/will break the sweat and effort it’s going to take for me to get there.
Sad really…
Edited 2006-08-27 05:14
I’ve turned a deaf ear to anything coming out of Redmond 5 years ago (…at least that’s what I’d like to think; keep your adversaries closest).
I couldn’t get a decent days work done on Windows then and I still can’t today, nothing has changed.
Hell, I’m more productive on my Linux box (Sadly after getting everything functioning how I’d like it but it was worth the added effort).
On the other end Vista isn’t even out yet so anything said is void.
I do have one question, how many times before a product that should have been launched numerous times is considered vapor-ware?
Edited 2006-08-27 05:46
It is Vaporware when despite numerous broken deadlines noone ever even get it to try. Thats why Vista isn’t Vaporware. If you want to try it, just get the release candidate.
This entire page is nothing but a joke.
“Virus? Welcome to real life, sure OS x is more secure than windows but if it got 50% market share expect some more conflicts, OS X is NOT immune so be warned.”
And we hear the same story on Linux too, all the time.
But, sorry, it just isn’t true. OSX, BSD, and Linux too (although Linux is beaten by BSD), they’re more secure because of their architecture, and because of the more mature multi-user setup, and root/user separation. The market share thing is just a myth. It’s just easier to compromise XP.
But I guess Vista will be better.
With Apple, you have applications that are great with basics like Web browsing and photo manipulation, but you don’t have the sophisticated business applications geared toward Windows.”
Nice article.While i agree somewhat with the author that MS has the best business applications,although it depends on your business.I mean if you are a graphics artist or a musician the choice is obvious Apple all the way.
Nevertheless XP pro will be the last windows on one of my boxen.
This has turn, of course, into a “Why people love Windows (PC’s) versus OSX (Macs).
I use both, and like the Mac better and I was a Windows (PC) user for 95% of my life. But this doesn’t come down at this point to what anyone likes.
It comes down to Microsoft owning the majority of the market and it would be practicaly impossible for any competitors to put a large dent into their market share.
For the majority of the large businesses, it would take such an monumental effort to change all that. I know that some of you would say that you can now run Windows on a Mac in various ways, and I appreciate that, but to make this kind of change inside a large organization would be quite an undertaking (not impossible but not easy)
I believe the only visible dent, would be at the home user level, but it would still be a very small dent.
Sadly enough, even there was the “perfect hardware” and “OS” out there, to put a dent into Microsoft’s market would take years.
Does anyone actually *love* Windows? In my experience most of the people using Windows hate the fact that they have to use computers at all.
I’d like to think I could blame it all on Windows, but it ain’t necessarily so.
A lot of people (Non technical) hate using computers because they feel it is not intuitive enough.
You are correct in saying that you can’t blame it all on Windows, but because most pc’s have Windows install on them, non-technical users sees them as one (PC = Windows).
When I say “non-technical”, i mean the very basic users, the same that own a VCR that is still flashing “12:00:00pm”
interesting subject.
Yes, i do. I don’t like OS X at all, though that might be due to the fact that i don’t actually own a Mac but only have to use it from time to time on somebody others Hardware. I’m curious about it from a programmers point of view, but i don’t fancy getting something like an iMac and the only Macs that come in Towers are total overkill. Maybe i get an iBook someday but right now my Laptop is to actual to replace it.
I like Linux a lot and it even replaced Windows completly on all my pure work boxes, but that is due to the fact that i don’t even think again of trying getting DVD playback or Hardware accelerated 3D to work which only results in extreme amounts of stress.
Most of my programming tasks and sparetime-use i use Windows XP and i’m extremely satisfied with it. It runs extremely stable for me (the only crashes i saw was when my Harddisk went bye bye) and getting everything to work is a piece of cake. Plus, i never catched a virus since i don’t use pirated software (which seems to be virus source #1), don’t use iexplore and keep my system actual.
Are you sure that’s a realistic comparison? Why not compare a standard apple desktop, or laptop; to a standard dell desktop, or laptop?
Whether the mac counters windows vista is an irrelevant discussion. People and companies will continue to buy PC’s with Windows XP or Vista since Windows is ubiquitous, familiar, inexpensive, and just good enough. There will always be the 5-6% PC user crowd that appreciates the extra polish the Mac comes with. There is no evidence that this current trend will change with Vista. The first version of Vista will be buggy just like XP was when it first came out. All the computers at the last two companies I worked at ran Windows XP. Monopolies and corporate standards are slow to change. There has to be a compelling reason to change otherwise people get adjusted to living with ‘just good enough’. This isn’t a criticism or judgement on Windows users. Possibly it is human nature to stick with what you know until a compelling innovation arises that offers a drastically significant benefit. Sticking with older habits conserves energy since the learning curve is reduced.
Edited 2006-08-27 17:53
Perhaps there isn’t a single reason for why Apple might gain some ground on Windows, but I can see reasons not mentioned in the article.
I went to pick up the new WEP key for my daughter’s school network. They were putting them into student laptops in the school’s computer lab. I spotted half a dozen new computers there, all iMacs. After a serious stab at a Windows based lab, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Why? For the school, the Apple’s need less upkeep. That’s the bottom line. Apples work, and tend to keep on working.
That’s the same reason behind my son’s high school converting it’s servers to Linux. Windows was too much of a hassle.
Features are nice; I’m sure they sell computers. The people I spoke to who bought Apple did so, however, because they wanted less hassle in their lives, not because of iLife, or some fancy OS feature.
I thought I’d chip in since I didn’t see this argument anywhere.
But, in my opinion: the most important capability of an operating system, is to allow users ‘to get work done’.
Between Windows, Linux, and OSX, I’d say Windows is the worst-equipped to actually ‘get work done’.
Unless you’re work is gaming… let’s say you’re FatalitY (or whats his name) and you’re running Unreal Tournament one Linux through Wine/Cedega. He looses an important match because of a vertex shader bug in Wine/Cedega, making him notice an opponent too late. Does this mean Linux and Wine/Cedega suck? Not really, but they sure do for Fatality at that moment.
But actually, in this case Unreal Tournament *does* have a Linux version. Supposing an equal amount of attention has been paid to both versions, there’s no reason not to run it on Linux. That is because there’s no lock-in.
If I’m a student who has to hand in a paper, there’s no reason at all why I can’t use OpenOffice, Abiword, Lyx/Latex, or something else. Some of the features of these word processors might actually save me a LOT of time compared to Ms Word.
Now if someone creates a survey report and a couple of spaces get switched in the document… making the numbers not line up when opened in OpenOffice. Well, that can be awful.
Why is Microsoft so intent on lock-in? Not only because it makes it easier to switch, but also because it camouflages the fact that it’s often more difficult to get work done in Windows. I’m a Linux user since a couple of years, but I think Mac OSX is actually the best platform to get a lot of work done on it. Especially good at ‘creative’ work. Core Animation won’t mean anything to a standard user, but you bet animation studios or companies creating digital effects for commercials will LOVE it.
Another thing is, select a line in an e-mail and make it a ‘To Do’. Might sound trivial, but ask yourself: how many times did you receive an e-mail from your collegue asking you ‘hey, could you do/give/create that for me by date x/yy/zzzz ?’. Instead of opening your task list, creating a new entry and copying/pasting the text, you just select a line and click the ‘To Do’ icon. It’s brilliant in its simplicity.
Things like Spotlight, Beagle, are also real time-savers if you’ve got a lot of documents… a number of these features is why I think that, at this moment, recent OSX and Linux versions are in fact MORE productive than Windows XP, unless you need special applications (also a sort of ‘lock-in’).
People running Linux have been able to use ‘Spaces’ for the longest time, called Virtual Desktops. Admittedly, Apple’s implementation of this is more elegant and practical for most end-users.
The ‘Control another Mac’s desktop’ and work together on the same screen space, at the same time, could be a wonderful time-saver to some people, and a complete waste of time for others.
I think that, in the end, Linux has a better shot at pulling a fair amount of market share away from Windows because the platform is much less bound by rules and restrictions. And because, over time, it will implement most of the time-saving, ‘get work done’ features (or equivalent functionality) from the other operating systems.
In the end, I feel that the Windows operating system by itself, in an ‘out of the box’ installation, is much less productive than equivalent Linux or OSX ‘out of the box’ installations.
Why this matters is because, if I can complete a necessary task 2x up to 5x faster than someone else, I have a definite advantage over that person. So no, Microsoft cannot just sit on its ass and just bring out re-chewed versions of Windows XP every couple of years…
“Not only because it makes it easier to switch”
should of course have been:
“Not only because it makes it more difficult to switch”
I own an Athlon 64 3400+ that I built. It runs XP Pro and whatever Linux Distro I am playing with at the time. Mostly SuSE and Kubuntu.
I also own a MacBook, a PowerBook G4, a Dell Inspiron 5150, and a home built AMD Sempron 3100+ based box (SuSE 10.1) as a file server.
The MacBook was bought last month and is fantastic, at the refurb price of $949 it cost the same or less then anything similar to it, and I don’t care about iLife. The first thing I do is remove half of that stuff.
XP has it’s good points, is just better I think. The closest I can find for usability is KDE once I have customized it. XP just doesn’t offer that yet, and with the next release of OS X and the addition of multiple desktops (available now for XP in powertoys, but it blue screened me several times) I honestly think at least for me, the windows boxes will be relegated to strickly being gaming machines.
this conversaton is POINTLESS….. talk about WAISTED energy and productivity! Do any of you really think any of you points matter? Seriously…. this Windows/Mac debate will rage…. UNRESOLVED for decades… much as it already has…. for DECADES!!!!
can we just DROP IT already?!?!?!?!