Request for Edwin and others
Snit
Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at least
Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
Oxford
> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
>
> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at least
> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
one error is this:
Under Mac OS X Disadvantages
1. Dock is difficut to "home in on" and can get in the way
while i agree the default setting of the dock apple ships with can cause
these problems... but it's easily fixed by adjusting the Dock
Preferences.
it seems a bit unfair to list this as a disadvantage when both of these
issues can be fixed quite qickly with no additional software...
move or "hide" the dock... adjust the magnification...
you also have a typo... difficut, should be difficult...
Oxford
-
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
It's pretty fair AFAIC, but one of the XP advantages should, in truth be
the cost of hardware and one of the Mac's disadvantages, likewise,
should be cost of hardware. Still, The Mac has 72 advantages and 4
disadvantages while XP has only13 advantages and 28 disadvantages.
That's about right. I certainly agree with most of XP's disadvantages.
Anyway, the Mac is the clear winner here as it would be in any unbiased
study :->
--
George Tirebiter asked you, "If it's a disk problem, then
why did (PC Magazine) say that the G4 also kicked Dell's ass when loading the
controls was added to the time?"
And Whine-Idiot answers: "It was a misprint"
Bill Gutz
Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size would be offended by the
fact that you list 17 items under "Mac OS X Unique Software " but only
three items under "Win XP Unique Software". Heck, this is even insulting
to Mac advocates who post here.
If you had any semblance of respectability, you would have listed at
least 10 times more Windows applications than Mac applications.
Furthermore, most of the items you list under Mac-only have Windows-only
equivalents magnified by a factor of five or more in terms of quantity
available.
As a Mac and Windows user, I give your web site 0.2 out of 5 stars. The
only reason I don't give your web site a 0 out of 5 stars is that you
provide links to other web sites at the bottom of your page. Following
these links confirms my position that clueless people are still not an
endangered commodity on planet Earth in this day and age.
Regards
--
Bill
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
Its still a yawning pit of Maccie crap. It probably will still be the
next time you get desperate for attention as well.
Mike Dee
news:ndkfovkrci5v0r62a...@4ax.com:
>>http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
>
> Its still a yawning pit of Maccie crap. It probably will still be the
> next time you get desperate for attention as well.
>
Thus spake the faux mayor, To wit to woo.
Snit
"Oxford" <cs...@mac.com> wrote:
If you hide the dock, as I do, you lose some of the functionality - the real
time icon changes. To make it consistent to target, you have to pin it to
the top or left side of the screen - a feature that is not even available by
default, and even then the trash and other items may move.
>
> you also have a typo... difficut, should be difficult...
>
Fixed. Thank you.
Snit
gmgravesnos-6F5D...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "George Graves"
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <BBACC71A.2A300%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
>>
>> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at least
>> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
>> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
>>
>
> It's pretty fair AFAIC, but one of the XP advantages should, in truth be
> the cost of hardware and one of the Mac's disadvantages, likewise,
> should be cost of hardware. Still, The Mac has 72 advantages and 4
> disadvantages while XP has only13 advantages and 28 disadvantages.
> That's about right. I certainly agree with most of XP's disadvantages.
> Anyway, the Mac is the clear winner here as it would be in any unbiased
> study :->
When you compare name brand computers, the Mac is about the same price -
sometimes a bit more or less depending on your exact configuration.
Macs do not cover as many markets, for example they do not support the
hobbyist who builds his own computer. I do have that in the Windows
advantages.
Thanks for the comments.
Snit
lFPhb.6987$dn6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bill Gutz"
<bill...@billgutz.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
>>
>> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at least
>> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
>> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
>
> Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size would be offended by the
> fact that you list 17 items under "Mac OS X Unique Software " but only
> three items under "Win XP Unique Software". Heck, this is even insulting
> to Mac advocates who post here.
Can you list more for Windows? Can you show equivalent software for Windows
that is listed under the Mac? If you can, I will happily update the page.
If all you want to do is whine, well, there is not much I can do to help
you.
> If you had any semblance of respectability, you would have listed at
> least 10 times more Windows applications than Mac applications.
> Furthermore, most of the items you list under Mac-only have Windows-only
> equivalents magnified by a factor of five or more in terms of quantity
> available.
Examples. Please.
> As a Mac and Windows user, I give your web site 0.2 out of 5 stars. The
> only reason I don't give your web site a 0 out of 5 stars is that you
> provide links to other web sites at the bottom of your page. Following
> these links confirms my position that clueless people are still not an
> endangered commodity on planet Earth in this day and age.
You seem to be flame bating more than critiquing. Do you have any concrete
suggestions for "fixing" my site that you see as being so hideously flawed?
Snit
Can you find any place where it is inaccurate? If not, why are you
complaining?
Oh, more flame bait.
Snit
Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
I am always amazed at how people will say "such and such is horrid", yet not
give any reason as to why or how. Perhaps they are jealous? Who knows....
Anyway, I am open to all CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms about the site... If people
do not understand what the term "constructive" means, well, they can post
anyway... I can always ignore it. :)
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>On 10/11/03 2:48 AM, in article ndkfovkrci5v0r62a...@4ax.com,
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:29:14 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
>>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
>>>
>>> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at least
>>> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
>>> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
>>
>> Its still a yawning pit of Maccie crap. It probably will still be the
>> next time you get desperate for attention as well.
>>
>Can you find any place where it is inaccurate? If not, why are you
>complaining?
>
>Oh, more flame bait.
Your site is such a one sided crock that its obvious that you have no
interest in being even handed.
Sandman
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:15:08 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >On 10/11/03 2:48 AM, in article ndkfovkrci5v0r62a...@4ax.com,
> >"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:29:14 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
> >>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people
> >>> think.
> >>>
> >>> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at
> >>> least
> >>> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair?
> >>> Is
> >>> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
> >>>
> >>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
> >>
> >> Its still a yawning pit of Maccie crap. It probably will still be the
> >> next time you get desperate for attention as well.
> >>
> >Can you find any place where it is inaccurate? If not, why are you
> >complaining?
> >
> >Oh, more flame bait.
>
> Your site is such a one sided crock that its obvious that you have no
> interest in being even handed.
Damn, here I was thinking "Oh god, is the Mayor going to give THIS guy a list
of things that are inaccurate - he'll never know what hit him!" and then you
fail me? You FAIL me?
Damn you Mayor - if I din't know better, I would have thought you were an
ignorant troll!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:15:08 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> On 10/11/03 2:48 AM, in article ndkfovkrci5v0r62a...@4ax.com,
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:29:14 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
>>>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
>>>>
>>>> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at
>>>> least
>>>> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
>>>> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
>>>
>>> Its still a yawning pit of Maccie crap. It probably will still be the
>>> next time you get desperate for attention as well.
>>>
>> Can you find any place where it is inaccurate? If not, why are you
>> complaining?
>>
>> Oh, more flame bait.
>
> Your site is such a one sided crock that its obvious that you have no
> interest in being even handed.
>
You seem to believe it is not even handed, yet are unable to point out where
it is not. If you decide to respond to this, PLEASE try to make a point.
Snit
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
LOL - It amazes me when the trolls are hit with facts how they just fall to
the level of insults. Really, I am not trying to put any system down - I am
simply looking for facts. This is the perfect time for Mac bashers to come
out in force and show me how ignorant I am; after all, I am ASKING them to.
Yet, they seem unable to point out errors (of which I am sure there are
some).
For the record, just saying "you are wrong" in whatever verbiage you like
does not help. In order to be useful, I need *information*.
Mike Dee
news:BBADB3C7.2A429%snit-...@cableone.net:
You should see what the mayor tries to pass of as "art". Haw! you'd quickly
begin to realise that he's just a failed Maccie wanna-be.
Any criticism coming from mayor of your site will only be a poor whineing
rant at best, when it comes from this loser.
Snit
Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
Hey... No fair trying to make others look bad when they have the skills to
do it themselves!
Mike Dee
news:BBAE456F.2A6A6%snit-...@cableone.net:
All's fair in love and war [in this case I refer to the latter].
Edwin
"Snit" <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:BBACC71A.2A300%snit-...@cableone.net...
A great many of the things you list as "advantages" for Mac OS X exist in
Windows, such as keyboard mapping, and others are just subjective assertions
on your part, such as "crisper icons."
Your "cost of ownership" comparison is a complete disappointment, as you
talk all about cars, and have no concrete proof or figures to show Macs have
a lower TCO.
Edwin
Snit
Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
Believe it or not, I am actually looking to see if the Mac bashers can make
a point - I welcome it. Not looking for a war at all... For that matter, I
welcome corrections from Mac fans. Really just want to make my site as
accurate as I can.
Of course, the Mac bashers do not seem to get that point - all I have gotten
so far from them is attacks completely devoid of information. I truly hope
they can do better. Note, I said "hope", not "expect".
I suppose the good news is that so far it appears as though my site is
essentially accurate.
Snit
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> "Snit" <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:BBACC71A.2A300%snit-...@cableone.net...
>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people
> think.
>>
>> Edwin, you seem to be a rather outspoken Windows / PC supporter (or at
> least
>> Mac basher), what do you think? Do you find my comparison to be fair? Is
>> it accurate? I am happy to modify it for reasoned arguments.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
>
>
> A great many of the things you list as "advantages" for Mac OS X exist in
> Windows, such as keyboard mapping, and others are just subjective assertions
> on your part, such as "crisper icons."
On Macs you can fairly easily (for an advanced user) create your own
keyboard maps; for example, I created one to let me type in silly
characters. Let me give you an example: ¢ª¼ ÿºu ®èª Ýh¡§? ýÝ èpè¼ § º¼
ÿºu® ¢hª®ª¢Ýè® §èÝ.
Depending on your character set, you should be able to read that. I have
not found any easy way to do that on Windows. Do you know of a way? If
there is one, I shall remove that point.
As far as crisper icons go, compare the IE icons on Mac and Windows - or
really almost any other program. OS X icons are up to 128 X 128 pixels and
have built in scaling that works very well. XP is not even close here.
> Your "cost of ownership" comparison is a complete disappointment, as you
> talk all about cars, and have no concrete proof or figures to show Macs have
> a lower TCO.
Repeatedly studies have found that to be the case. Some examples:
http://classroomtco.cosn.org/checklist/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/19990127142718/macweek.zdnet.com/mw_1127/op_decad
e.html
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=545
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919184035/http://www.themacmind.com/~ymac/no
rriswong.html
http://www.iaete.org/tco/
http://classroomtco.cosn.org/resources/tco.html
http://homepage.mac.com/smkolins/ratiopaperv2.html
And there are many many others. They were, by the way, all found by looking
at the site where you claimed it talked about cars. It used cars as an
analogy and then gave many specific links where the TCO of Macs have
consistently been found to be better than that of Windows machines. I can
not find any studies that show Windows having a better TCO. Can you? Even
if there are a couple, it seems the overwhelming majority point to the Mac
winning this area. The point stands.
At the same time I have to commend you - you are the first "Mac basher" to
make an effort to correct information on the site. Thank you. I welcome
any reasoned refutation of the points I made here or of other points in the
site.
Jim Polaski
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
snit, don't get in one. The mayor is only and idiot disguised to look
like a moron.
--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget
Windows-the computer you need, Macintosh-The computer you Want!ant!i?e
Steve Mackay
The one utility I see missing for the Mac is a reliable, redundant audio
grabber like EAC for windows( http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ ), or CDparanoia
for Linux and BSD.
Another shortcoming for the Mac is lack of Mcad, and other engineering apps.
Snit
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I openly admit ignorance here - I do not know much about CD rippers on the
Mac. Anyone else? Is there an equal for the Mac? Until I hear
differently, exactaudiocopy is on the list.
I know there are CAD programs for the Mac, but again, it is an area I do not
know much about. I am looking for progs that are very common (like MS
Office) or under $50. Have any titles?
Thanks.
Steve Mackay
When I say engineering, I mean big time players, like Pro/Engineer,
Unigraphics, SDRC, etc... These are large $ programs(sometimes, fully
optioned around $20K fore full cad/cam apps). Or even the smaller time
players, like Solidworks. I'm talking about full 3D parametric modelers.
Another shortcomming for the Mac is 'professional' 3D graphics cards.
Like the Nvidia Quadra series, 3DLabs Wildcat series, and ATI FireGLs. Now
there are rumors that 3Dlabs is in talks with Apple about porting their
drivers over to OSX.
Snit
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I *thought* I had a point that mentioned this somewhere. I did not. Note a
new Mac disadvantage. Since this does not fit the criteria of my software
section, it is not added there.
> Another shortcomming for the Mac is 'professional' 3D graphics cards.
> Like the Nvidia Quadra series, 3DLabs Wildcat series, and ATI FireGLs. Now
> there are rumors that 3Dlabs is in talks with Apple about porting their
> drivers over to OSX.
I do have a Windows advantage that soundcards and other hardware TEND to
come out for Windows first. Not always, but often enough to make it a
Windows advantage.
Thank you for taking the time to look at my site and point out areas of
improvement. You seem to be critical of the Mac and/or have a Windows
preference, but your preference seems to be tied to KNOWLEDGE, not just the
meaningless yapping that some of the "Mac bashers" seem to have. Refreshing
in an arena that is often just filled with meaningless flame baiting and
name calling.
Steve Mackay
"Snit" <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Thanks for the compliment. I am neither a Mac fanatic, nor a wintroll. I
use a Mac at home mostly, and a wintel box at work, doing tool design (Mcad
work). I bought my 1st Mac about 12 months ago, and haven't looked back :)
The wife was just commenting this evening about how today was the 1st
time she's logged into my wintel box to play a game. She noticed how clumsy
things are on the Windows side of things now to her, and how much more
intuitive the Mac GUI is.
George Graves
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
privilege.
Snit
gmgravesnos-0D10...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "George Graves"
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
distributors (say Dell), they tend to use less power (which saves money),
they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money), and in general have a
much better return on investment.
In the long run, not only do Macs have the better GUI (in most areas), they
are cheaper.
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
> > do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
> > prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
> > privilege.
>
> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
> distributors (say Dell), they tend to use less power (which saves money),
> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money), and in general have a
> much better return on investment.
>
> In the long run, not only do Macs have the better GUI (in most areas), they
> are cheaper.
Well, even as a Maccie, I can't agree. PC's ARE cheaper. You would have to ONLY
look at Dell and ONLY on high end Macs to support your position, and while it's
quite clear that Dell is number one, it's foolish to draw any conclusions from
that.
There is no denying that PC's can be had for much much cheaper than Macs,
especially in the consumer space.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Mackay
Ya know George, I never really paid it much thought. I use 3 platforms
daily. Mac, Windows, and Linux. The wife has become very comfortable with
the Mac gui, and now prefers it. She put a CD in my WIntel box(it mainly
hangs around for games, and when I bring home work), and waited for it to be
mounted on the desktop, forgetting the PC doesn't do that for ya :) So when
I got home last night from work(after working 13 hours on a wintel box), she
said "That thing is clumsy!:. Which I thought was interesting coming from
her. She's never really commented much on computers. She uses them daily,
and has basically just put up with my passion for computers. But now she
*REALLY* prefers the Mac. We'll soon by adding a Powerbook to the herd now
:)
Steve Mackay
But, for those of us that build them ourselves, it is more expensive.
>they tend to use less power (which saves
> money),
> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money), and in general
> have a
> much better return on investment.
Every PC I've built has been reliable as hell. The only exception is a
single Soltek KT333 based motherboard taking a dump on me. The Dells we've
bought here OTOH haven't been as lucky. EVERY one of them has needed work.
EVERY one of them, the onboard NIC has died.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>> Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
>> do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
>> prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
>> privilege.
>
>Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>distributors (say Dell),
False - Dell's cost a fraction of the price.
>they tend to use less power (which saves money),
Not really.
>they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
>and in general have a
>much better return on investment.
How so?
>In the long run, not only do Macs have the better GUI (in most areas), they
>are cheaper.
That's funny!
Edwin
There is the Keyboard Control Panel that has a multitude of keyboard maps,
for a huge list of languages. If you're looking for a way to make a random
map for your own personal language, I admit I don't see an easy way to do
that in Windows, but then I don't see any advantage in that ability
either...
> As far as crisper icons go, compare the IE icons on Mac and Windows - or
> really almost any other program. OS X icons are up to 128 X 128 pixels
and
> have built in scaling that works very well. XP is not even close here.
Then use a third party Windows shell that's more to your liking. For my
part, the current Windows icons are good enough, and hardly a reason to
switch me back to the Mac.
> > Your "cost of ownership" comparison is a complete disappointment, as you
> > talk all about cars, and have no concrete proof or figures to show Macs
have
> > a lower TCO.
>
> Repeatedly studies have found that to be the case. Some examples:
> http://classroomtco.cosn.org/checklist/index.html
Information on how to detemine TCO, no study to show the Mac has lower TCO.
Also old, as it mentions 486/66.
>
http://web.archive.org/web/19990127142718/macweek.zdnet.com/mw_1127/op_decad
> e.html
An article written in 1997, which makes it six years old. It took time to
do the study before the article was written, making the study 7 to 8 years
old. In short, it's totally irrelevant.
> http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=545
A story from "Insanely Great Mac" which does not give a cite for the study
they claim to quote. No doubt because they realize people will see it's
too old to be relevant.
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919184035/http://www.themacmind.com/~ymac/no
> rriswong.html
"This report examines the system maintenance differences between an Apple
Macintosh and a PC running Windows 98."
An old report that covers two computers. Hardly an exhustive or
comprehensive study, to say the least.
A TCO calculator, not a study favoring Apple.
> http://classroomtco.cosn.org/resources/tco.html
A dupicate of the first item in your list.
> http://homepage.mac.com/smkolins/ratiopaperv2.html
The article was written in 2000, but all the figures and studies referred to
in it range from 1992 to 1997. Once again, too old to be relevant.
> And there are many many others.
Got any that aren't five years old or older?
>They were, by the way, all found by looking
> at the site where you claimed it talked about cars.
Sorry, I couldn't wade through all that twaddle about cars to get to the
links...
>It used cars as an
> analogy
Which is a tiresome mistake often repeated by Mac advocates.
> and then gave many specific links where the TCO of Macs have
> consistently been found to be better than that of Windows machines.
Irrelevant, out-of-date articles.
>I can
> not find any studies that show Windows having a better TCO. Can you?
I don't need any. I know how much less it cost me to have PCs than it did
for me to buy and upgrade my Mac.
> Even
> if there are a couple, it seems the overwhelming majority point to the Mac
> winning this area. The point stands.
You have no point to stand until you find a study that's less than five
years old.
> At the same time I have to commend you - you are the first "Mac basher" to
> make an effort to correct information on the site. Thank you. I welcome
> any reasoned refutation of the points I made here or of other points in
the
> site.
You're welcome.
I am a former Mac owner. My Mac "bashing" consists of disagreeing that
Macs have any advantage that justifies paying more for them than PCs. It
also consists of pointing out when the advantage lies with the PC.
Edwin
Michael Klatt
> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
>
I think many of the advantages/disadvantges you list are subjective.
There are also some errors and unsupported assertions. I don't know
what your background is, but it seems like you are definitely biased
towards the Mac.
I've never used OS X so I don't know what an "Action Menu" is but your
description makes it sound like a Windows right-click contextual menu.
Are you claiming that Windows doesn't have this, or that it's
inferior? Ditto for hot keys. Also, you seem to say that Java 2 is
not available for XP.
As for pure subjectivity, is it a big deal that a Mac has "crisper
icons"? I've never seen animated folder icons, but they sound
annoying. The Windows "advantage" of hiding infrequently-used menu
items drives me nuts. I could come up with many more examples of
subjectivity.
There are assertions that you throw out there without any evidence to
back them up. How "common" are hardware compatibility errors on
Windows? And, isn't this at least in part because there is a wider
range of hardware that will run under Windows? This argument is
closely related to the "greater need to get new drivers", so if it
really is legitimate they should be grouped together.
I just noticed this: it's a disadvantage that you can use a
left-handed mouse with Windows?! Why do you list viruses and
vulnerabilities as two seperate items? This is a good one: Virtual PC
is only available on the Mac. Gee, do you think so? If you're going
to play that game it should be a Windows advantage that it runs
Windows software without an emulator. If you're trying to point out
that you can run Windows software on a Mac you need to phrase it
better.
You also pull out the well-worn TCO argument. This *may* have some
legs for OS X in a corporate environment, but how many recurring costs
do home users have? For most of that market, initial cost is
virtually synonomous with TCO. The TCO link you provided made a bogus
analogy with car ownership. I don't have to change the oil on my PC
every 3750 miles, and I'm not considering how its depreciation will
effect trade-in value.
Why do you split up font managment into so many different items? I
think Mac advocates give this argument way too much emphasis. I'm
sure this is a big deal for publishing, but for how many users is this
significant? The same can be said for color management. Give the Mac
an advantage called "professional desktop publishing" if you want, but
don't exaggerate its importance. Fonts are one example of something
that you list as both an advantage for OS X and disadvantage for XP.
This will skew the the +/- tally.
Your software arguments are seriously flawed. For example, I may not
be able to get BB Edit, but are you implying that you can't get a
similar text editor for Windows? If you're going to focus on specific
software titles you probably need an entire web page devoted to
Windows-only software.
Many of the OS X advantages (POSIX compatibility, free developer
tools, etc.) come from it's BSD heritage. You can install the free
Cygwin *nix emulator on Windows and get many of the same advantages.
I don't think your web page is going to change anyone's mind. Mac
users will see it and pat themselves on the back for being so
obviously superior, and Windows users will see it as another example
of questionable and perhaps delusional Mac fanaticism. You weren't
able to find ANY Wintel advocacy sites to add to your links?
Snit
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
While you can buy a cheaper Windows machine, a Windows machine configured to
have what a Mac has is about the same or more. Price any Mac, then price a
similar PC, with same memory, HD, CD/DVD drive, USB ports, Firewire ports,
etc... THEN add to the PC virus protection, make sure it has XP Pro (not
home), add some software that comes close to iLife (if you can find any),
etc. Oh, and for the fun of it, add MS Office WITH PowerPoint to both
systems. Now, if you want, add $15 to the Mac to get a Logitech two button
laser scroll mouse, many advanced users would want this. You will have to
do some approximating... Not all features on one will be on the other.
If you can show comparable Win machines for various levels on any major
venders site, I will change the point. I have done the comparisons many
times in the past; low end, high end, laptop, etc - in SOME categories the
Mac is beaten, but overall they do VERY well.
Snit
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> On 10/14/03 12:48 AM, in article
>> gmgravesnos-0D10...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "George
>> Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>> distributors (say Dell),
>
> But, for those of us that build them ourselves, it is more expensive.
I have on my site that Windows serves the hobbyist better. Yes, as a hobby
you can make cheap computers. You *can* do the same with Mac, at least to
some extent, but it is not as easy. Hence, Windows got that point.
>
>> they tend to use less power (which saves money), they tend to need fewer
>> repairs (which saves money), and in general have a much better return on
>> investment.
>
> Every PC I've built has been reliable as hell. The only exception is a
> single Soltek KT333 based motherboard taking a dump on me. The Dells we've
> bought here OTOH haven't been as lucky. EVERY one of them has needed work.
> EVERY one of them, the onboard NIC has died.
Perhaps. As a rule, however, this is not the case. Homemade computers are
not tested the way big brand ones are, and incompatibilities crop up. I
have seen it too many times to be convinced otherwise. Even the people I
know who claim to be exceptions rarely are - they just neglect to talk about
all the tinkering they have to do to maintain their machines. Are you an
exception? Perhaps - but if so you are in the minority. And lucky.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:56:58 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
>>> do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
>>> prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
>>> privilege.
>>
>> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>> distributors (say Dell),
>
> False - Dell's cost a fraction of the price.
Price'm. I just did - low end on both. Mac was much cheaper. I had MS
Office with PowerPoint on both, 256 MB Ram (single chip), 80 GB HD, 17 inch
monitor. Do not forget to add to the Win machine virus checking, XP Pro,
Firewire, movie editing tools, image tools... All the stuff that comes on a
Mac.
>
>> they tend to use less power (which saves money),
> Not really.
Power DOES cost money. Really.
>> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
> I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
Macs have generally had some of the lowest dead on arrival rates and rate
with the lowest repair costs. I do tech work for people - I make a LOT more
money from my Windows people...
>> and in general have a much better return on investment.
> How so?
Answered elsewhere in this thread.
Snit
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Macs you can fairly easily (for an advanced user) create your own
>> keyboard maps; for example, I created one to let me type in silly
>> characters. Let me give you an example: ¢ª¼ ÿºu ®èª Ýh¡§? ýÝ èpè¼ § º¼
>> ÿºu® ¢hª®ª¢Ýè® §èÝ.
>>
>> Depending on your character set, you should be able to read that. I have
>> not found any easy way to do that on Windows. Do you know of a way? If
>> there is one, I shall remove that point.
>
> There is the Keyboard Control Panel that has a multitude of keyboard maps,
> for a huge list of languages. If you're looking for a way to make a random
> map for your own personal language, I admit I don't see an easy way to do
> that in Windows, but then I don't see any advantage in that ability
> either...
The ability to make your own allows you to use keyboards that were not
anticipated by the maker of the computer. I will agree that it is not that
big of a deal.
>> As far as crisper icons go, compare the IE icons on Mac and Windows - or
>> really almost any other program. OS X icons are up to 128 X 128 pixels and
>> have built in scaling that works very well. XP is not even close here.
>
> Then use a third party Windows shell that's more to your liking. For my
> part, the current Windows icons are good enough, and hardly a reason to
> switch me back to the Mac.
Never said you should switch to the Mac for this point, any other, or for a
combination of any points. Windows, for example, wins on the games point -
if you are a gamer, and you use your computer mostly for that purpose, that
one point may be more important than all others.
> You have no point to stand until you find a study that's less than five
> years old.
I will agree that my TCO studies are a bit old. When do you think the tide
changed and the TCO of Windows caught up to the Mac?
Snit
"Kevin" <nom...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>> In the long run, not only do Macs have the better GUI (in most areas), they
>>> are cheaper.
>
>> Well, even as a Maccie, I can't agree. PC's ARE cheaper. You would have to
>> ONLY
>> look at Dell and ONLY on high end Macs to support your position, and while
>> it's
>> quite clear that Dell is number one, it's foolish to draw any conclusions
>> from
>> that.
>
>> There is no denying that PC's can be had for much much cheaper than Macs,
>> especially in the consumer space.
>
> I find it interesting to note that EVERY SINGLE PC USER I have shown my new
> Powerbook to, has basically had the same response: They ooh, and aaah, and
> say, "Damn, I want one, too bad it's so expensive!"
>
> Every single one.
>
> As for price parity: If you consider the total value of everything you get,
> it's a good deal. For example, my 12" PowerBook was about $2500 (Cdn) fully
> equipped with 512 MB of RAM, 40 gig hard drive, SuperDrive, Bluetooth, and
> Firewire. I can't really think of any similar-form-factor PC laptops that
> are similarly equipped for that price, and we're not even counting the value
> of the aluminum shell, OS X, etc.
>
> Another example: a few months ago I bought a Dell Latitude D800, intentionally
> minimally equipped with 128 MB of RAM and 20 gig hard drive, combo drive, no
> Bluetooth, and I paid $2600 for it. (Granted, it has a beautiful 15.4" WUXGA
> screen which no Mac has). A 15" combo drive Powerbook is $2849, but that
> includes more RAM (add $100 to the Dell price) and more hard drive (add $150
> to the Dell price) and 64 mb video card (add $150 to the Dell price). It also
> includes Bluetooth (add $99). To be fair, we should add $149 to the Powerbook
> for AirPort Extreme. So, they're sitting equal, not counting aluminum shell
> vs. high-res LCD.
>
> All prices in Canadian dollars, some of the above is guesstimating but those
> were pretty much the prices for the options a few months ago at Dell.ca.
>
> So, if considered on equal options, Apple products are relatively comparable.
> But I chose the minimally-equipped route so I could DIY later and save money
> on the initial purchase, and many people would probably want lower cost over
> tons of bells and whistles.
Agreed... Apple does not serve the low low end very well, and, really, for
what is now low low end may be adequate. I think it is this that confuses
some people into thinking that Macs are more expensive.
Snit
2cb75565.03101...@posting.google.com, "Michael Klatt"
<mdk...@ou.edu> wrote:
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:<BBACC71A.2A300%snit-...@cableone.net>...
>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both Mac and
>> Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious what people think.
> I think many of the advantages/disadvantges you list are subjective.
> There are also some errors and unsupported assertions. I don't know
> what your background is, but it seems like you are definitely biased
> towards the Mac.
I learned both in 1987 and have used them both since. I train people K-12
and adults how to work with computers. I do private consulting. Still,
experts of all types disagree, so I do not give these credentials to
indicate that my understanding is necessarily greater than others. But I am
very experienced with both platforms.
> I've never used OS X so I don't know what an "Action Menu" is but your
> description makes it sound like a Windows right-click contextual menu.
> Are you claiming that Windows doesn't have this, or that it's
> inferior?
Action menu is a way to get to the contextual menu without having to use the
right mouse button. This is a HUGE advantage for many people. If you
disagree, you have probably not worked extensively with young children,
retired folks, and other newbie's. For many of us in this group, who do not
mind the second button, it is not a big deal.
> Ditto for hot keys.
Mac hot keys tend to be more consistent and easier to use. Examples:
creating new folders and finding the original of an alias / shortcut.
> Also, you seem to say that Java 2 is not available for XP.
Available, yes.... Standard, not the last time I checked.
> As for pure subjectivity, is it a big deal that a Mac has "crisper
> icons"?
The point is not subjective. The relative value is. If you are a gamer,
the one point that says Windows is has newer games may be the most
important. Add to that the newer video cards for Windows, and a gamer may
not want to look at any other point. I am not a gamer, so those points do
not score high for me.
> I've never seen animated folder icons, but they sound
> annoying.
They give added feedback when you are dragging files on them. Very useful,
though not necessary.
> The Windows "advantage" of hiding infrequently-used menu
> items drives me nuts. I could come up with many more examples of
> subjectivity.
I agree... At least that "advantage" can be turned off. Other Windows folks
have told me they love it, so I add it there. If it could not be turned off
it would be a disadvantage. But you are right, that point (and others) may
not rank as high as others... I make no claim that each point should be
ranked equally.
> There are assertions that you throw out there without any evidence to
> back them up. How "common" are hardware compatibility errors on
> Windows?
Very - especially with home made "hobby" machines, but really, just on the
platform in general.
> And, isn't this at least in part because there is a wider
> range of hardware that will run under Windows?
Plug and Play works better on Mac.
> This argument is closely related to the "greater need to get new drivers", so
> if it really is legitimate they should be grouped together.
Often it is not even a driver issue... Let me give you an example. One of
the schools where I work went though a local company to get a bunch of PC's
(this was before I worked there). They paid extra to have USB cards put in.
Then, when the machines did not work, they AGAIN paid to have the cards
disabled - which is a pain, they come and go randomly from the device
manager. Driver problem? Perhaps - I have not needed USB on those machines
so I just leave them inactive.
> I just noticed this: it's a disadvantage that you can use a
> left-handed mouse with Windows?!
Not that you CAN, that all Win mice are either left or right handed. Silly,
really. Mac gives you choice. That *is* an advantage.
> Why do you list viruses and vulnerabilities as two seperate items?
Because they are separate issues. Many vulnerabilities have nothing to do
with viruses and vice versa.
> This is a good one: Virtual PC is only available on the Mac. Gee, do you
> think so?
Funny as it is, there IS a version of Virtual PC for Windows. There is no
version of Virtual Mac for Windows, at least nothing that runs OS X. As a
side note, VPC does not run on the new G5... If that is not corrected, and
not other Virtual machine steps up (like Bochs), then Macs will lose this
point.
> If you're going to play that game it should be a Windows advantage that it
> runs Windows software without an emulator. If you're trying to point out that
> you can run Windows software on a Mac you need to phrase it better.
It is now phrased: Virtual PC: allows emulation of a PC, including XP and
any other PC OS
What would you suggest?
> You also pull out the well-worn TCO argument. This *may* have some legs for
> OS X in a corporate environment, but how many recurring costs do home users
> have? For most of that market, initial cost is virtually synonomous with TCO.
For advanced users, perhaps. Then again, Win users have the recurring cost
of virus software that Mac folks do not. And advanced users tend to be on
the machine more, so the power costs count more.
> Why do you split up font managment into so many different items? I
> think Mac advocates give this argument way too much emphasis. I'm
> sure this is a big deal for publishing, but for how many users is this
> significant? The same can be said for color management. Give the Mac
> an advantage called "professional desktop publishing" if you want, but
> don't exaggerate its importance. Fonts are one example of something
> that you list as both an advantage for OS X and disadvantage for XP.
> This will skew the the +/- tally.
Again, I do not claim that each point is of equal value to each other. I do
not see what you mean where I have a disadvantage on the Win side and the
same point on the Mac side as an advantage. Please point out what you mean
and this will be corrected...
> Your software arguments are seriously flawed. For example, I may not
> be able to get BB Edit, but are you implying that you can't get a
> similar text editor for Windows?
I do not know of one. Do you? Common and cheap? If you can give me a link
I will remove that piece of software from the list.
> If you're going to focus on specific software titles you probably need an
> entire web page devoted to Windows-only software.
Do you have titles? Sites where I can check things out?
> Many of the OS X advantages (POSIX compatibility, free developer
> tools, etc.) come from it's BSD heritage. You can install the free
> Cygwin *nix emulator on Windows and get many of the same advantages.
You may be able to get it for Windows. It comes with a Mac. Plenty of
software / shareware on the Mac is based on the BSD heritage. Cool, eh?
> I don't think your web page is going to change anyone's mind.
Probably not. But it does seem to slow the Mac bashers down... Gives them
something to think about.
> Mac users will see it and pat themselves on the back for being so obviously
> superior, and Windows users will see it as another example of questionable and
> perhaps delusional Mac fanaticism.
Which is why I welcome corrections and modify the site when appropriate.
Even in this thread I have made some changes.
> You weren't able to find ANY Wintel advocacy sites to add to your links?
Can you suggest any good ones that are relevant to the points made?
f...@bar.com
>George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
>> do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
>> prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
>> privilege.
>
>Having been on shake-down with my new Powerbook for about 2 weeks now, I have
>to agree, with reservations. Yes, the OS X interface is starting to grow on
>me, but no, I don't think the Windows approach is THAT bad.
>
>What I'm mostly finding is that the consistency on OS X is much better than
>that of Windows. Little things like, if you set a folder to sort by name, and
>later on create a new folder, the folder "snaps" into the right place
>alphabetically. In Windows, it sits at the bottom of the window until next
>time you open it, when it's at the top, in the right order... maybe? Maybe it
>will just stay at the bottom, and maybe it will set a precedent for no longer
>sorting new files into alphabetical order anymore. Sometimes. Who knows.
There's no maybe - it is created at the bottom of the list, where you
can easily find it and see it, and then you can either resort the list
(in which case it is sorted per the folder's default) or let it sit
there until the list is resorted or the directory refreshed - no
'sometimes' about it.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>> There is no denying that PC's can be had for much much cheaper than Macs,
>> especially in the consumer space.
>
>While you can buy a cheaper Windows machine, a Windows machine configured to
>have what a Mac has is about the same or more.
You're funny!
>Price any Mac, then price a
>similar PC, with same memory, HD, CD/DVD drive, USB ports, Firewire ports,
>etc... THEN add to the PC virus protection,
Included in the box for most PCs.
>make sure it has XP Pro (not
>home),
Why?
>add some software that comes close to iLife (if you can find any),
>etc.
...or just download it, or get it free with your digital camera...
>Oh, and for the fun of it, add MS Office WITH PowerPoint to both
>systems.
And with Access too. Ooops!
>Now, if you want, add $15 to the Mac to get a Logitech two button
>laser scroll mouse, many advanced users would want this. You will have to
>do some approximating... Not all features on one will be on the other.
>
>If you can show comparable Win machines for various levels on any major
>venders site, I will change the point. I have done the comparisons many
>times in the past; low end, high end, laptop, etc - in SOME categories the
>Mac is beaten, but overall they do VERY well.
Not really; the Mac loses - badly.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>On 10/14/03 6:42 AM, in article 58vnov8su0sqn5n49...@4ax.com,
>"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:56:58 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
>>>> do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
>>>> prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
>>>> privilege.
>>>
>>> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>>> distributors (say Dell),
>>
>> False - Dell's cost a fraction of the price.
>
>Price'm. I just did - low end on both. Mac was much cheaper. I had MS
>Office with PowerPoint on both, 256 MB Ram (single chip), 80 GB HD, 17 inch
>monitor. Do not forget to add to the Win machine virus checking, XP Pro,
>Firewire, movie editing tools, image tools... All the stuff that comes on a
>Mac.
Check out Anandtech's and FatWallet's deals forums; that config went
for $191 (for a 2400 with Office Basic) a little while ago, with 128M,
40G, no monitor. Add $60 for a monitor, $60 for a 120G HDD, and $60
for 512M of RAM. No Mac can touch that - speedwise either.
>>> they tend to use less power (which saves money),
>> Not really.
>Power DOES cost money. Really.
That wasn't the part I disagreed with.
>>> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
>> I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
>
>Macs have generally had some of the lowest dead on arrival rates and rate
>with the lowest repair costs. I do tech work for people - I make a LOT more
>money from my Windows people...
That's nice - Consumer Reports doesn't see the differences you do.
Given how many more PCs are used than Macs, the statistics you collect
probably are neither normalized nor material.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:07:24 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> There is no denying that PC's can be had for much much cheaper than Macs,
>>> especially in the consumer space.
>>
>> While you can buy a cheaper Windows machine, a Windows machine configured to
>> have what a Mac has is about the same or more.
>
> You're funny!
>
>> Price any Mac, then price a
>> similar PC, with same memory, HD, CD/DVD drive, USB ports, Firewire ports,
>> etc... THEN add to the PC virus protection,
>
> Included in the box for most PCs.
Firewire is included on most PC's? Hmmm... How about a lifetime
subscription to virus protection
>
>> make sure it has XP Pro (not
>> home),
>
> Why?
To be as fair as possible.
>
>> add some software that comes close to iLife (if you can find any),
>> etc.
>
> ...or just download it, or get it free with your digital camera...
What digital camera comes with something similar to iPhoto and iMovie? And
are you adding that to the cost of the PC?
>
>> Oh, and for the fun of it, add MS Office WITH PowerPoint to both
>> systems.
>
> And with Access too. Ooops!
Most home users do not use Access... Add File Maker Pro to both systems if
you want a general database. It is true, however, that Access does not
exist for Mac.
>> Now, if you want, add $15 to the Mac to get a Logitech two button
>> laser scroll mouse, many advanced users would want this. You will have to
>> do some approximating... Not all features on one will be on the other.
>>
>> If you can show comparable Win machines for various levels on any major
>> venders site, I will change the point. I have done the comparisons many
>> times in the past; low end, high end, laptop, etc - in SOME categories the
>> Mac is beaten, but overall they do VERY well.
>
> Not really; the Mac loses - badly.
Do the comparisons... I have. Many times. Mac does very well. Mac does
not, however, meet the low end PC's that do not have the features all Macs
come with.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:04:51 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/03 6:42 AM, in article 58vnov8su0sqn5n49...@4ax.com,
>> "f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:56:58 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot understand nor
>>>>> do they put any value upon, but it is, in a nutshell, why we Mac users
>>>>> prefer the Mac over Windows and don't mind paying the premium for the
>>>>> privilege.
>>>>
>>>> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>>>> distributors (say Dell),
>>>
>>> False - Dell's cost a fraction of the price.
>>
>> Price'm. I just did - low end on both. Mac was much cheaper. I had MS
>> Office with PowerPoint on both, 256 MB Ram (single chip), 80 GB HD, 17 inch
>> monitor. Do not forget to add to the Win machine virus checking, XP Pro,
>> Firewire, movie editing tools, image tools... All the stuff that comes on a
>> Mac.
>
> Check out Anandtech's and FatWallet's deals forums; that config went
> for $191 (for a 2400 with Office Basic) a little while ago, with 128M,
> 40G, no monitor. Add $60 for a monitor, $60 for a 120G HDD, and $60
> for 512M of RAM. No Mac can touch that - speedwise either.
LOL $60 for a high quality 17 inch new monitor. LOL! BTW - if I were to
put after market stuff in the Mac I could use the same HD, Mem, monitor,
etc.
>>>> they tend to use less power (which saves money),
>>> Not really.
>> Power DOES cost money. Really.
> That wasn't the part I disagreed with.
Care to elaborate?
>>>> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
>>> I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
>>
>> Macs have generally had some of the lowest dead on arrival rates and rate
>> with the lowest repair costs. I do tech work for people - I make a LOT more
>> money from my Windows people...
>
> That's nice - Consumer Reports doesn't see the differences you do.
> Given how many more PCs are used than Macs, the statistics you collect
> probably are neither normalized nor material.
I have posted links in this thread. They have been criticized for being
dated... They may be. Do you have any new info to show that things have
changed? Until then, the point stands.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
Yes, this bug is easily repeatable. It is good that Windows has a refresh
button to get around this bug. OS X could use its own refresh button to get
around some of its bugs. That is, btw, part of the list.
The sorting "bug" is not, because SOME people seem to think it makes sense
to have an alphabetically sorted list not be in alphabetical order.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> On 10/14/03 6:42 AM, in article
> 58vnov8su0sqn5n49...@4ax.com, "f...@bar.com"
> <f...@bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:56:58 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ain't it though. This is something that Wintrolls cannot
>>>> understand nor do they put any value upon, but it is, in a
>>>> nutshell, why we Mac users prefer the Mac over Windows and don't
>>>> mind paying the premium for the privilege.
>>>
>>> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>>> distributors (say Dell),
>>
>> False - Dell's cost a fraction of the price.
>
> Price'm. I just did - low end on both. Mac was much cheaper. I had
> MS Office with PowerPoint on both, 256 MB Ram (single chip), 80 GB
> HD, 17 inch monitor. Do not forget to add to the Win machine virus
> checking, XP Pro, Firewire, movie editing tools, image tools... All
> the stuff that comes on a Mac.
what are ya, on crack? how are you configuring these things? a dell 2400
w/ p4 2.2ghz chip, 256 mb ram, 80gb hd, choice of 19" crt of 15" tft, xp pro
costs about $1100, although you can get deals for much cheaper. a firewire
card wil cost you about $25. XP comes built in w/ movie editing and image
tools. a cheap emac w/ the same will run you close to $1500.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
no, i personally like new folders created at the bottom; it would be nice if
it were an option somewhere, but in large directory structures where you
want to immediately work on / in the newly created item, it's definately
preferable. to call it a bug when it's by design is just silly though.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> On 10/14/03 8:56 AM, in article
> 2cb75565.03101...@posting.google.com, "Michael Klatt"
> <mdk...@ou.edu> wrote:
>
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>> news:<BBACC71A.2A300%snit-...@cableone.net>...
>>> I have a page where I look, briefly, at the pros and cons of both
>>> Mac and Windows. I have posted my link before, but I am curious
>>> what people think.
>
>> I think many of the advantages/disadvantges you list are subjective.
>> There are also some errors and unsupported assertions. I don't know
>> what your background is, but it seems like you are definitely biased
>> towards the Mac.
>
> I learned both in 1987 and have used them both since. I train people
> K-12
> and adults how to work with computers. I do private consulting.
> Still, experts of all types disagree, so I do not give these
> credentials to
> indicate that my understanding is necessarily greater than others.
> But I am very experienced with both platforms.
but you are still obviously biased, and obviously trolling. you put out
this page a while ago, and i gave lots of comments about why some of your
advantages/disadvantages were simply incorrect, but you just twisted them to
suit your biases. as an example, you origionally had "better java support"
for the mac as an advantage, but when i pointed out that windows actually
has better java support (being a primary platform that sun develops for,
rather than counting on third parties to port new jdk's and sdk's, and
supporting all the optional api's, which macs don't), you simply changed the
mac advantage to "java2 support out of the box", without noting in your
windows advantages that it has *better* java support. there were many other
examples.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>On 10/14/03 4:32 PM, in article mp1pov43mb36a82vd...@4ax.com,
>"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:07:24 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is no denying that PC's can be had for much much cheaper than Macs,
>>>> especially in the consumer space.
>>>
>>> While you can buy a cheaper Windows machine, a Windows machine configured to
>>> have what a Mac has is about the same or more.
>>
>> You're funny!
>>
>>> Price any Mac, then price a
>>> similar PC, with same memory, HD, CD/DVD drive, USB ports, Firewire ports,
>>> etc... THEN add to the PC virus protection,
>>
>> Included in the box for most PCs.
>
>Firewire is included on most PC's? Hmmm... How about a lifetime
>subscription to virus protection
Look at the last line quoted. C'mon! Lifetime, no, and yes, that's a
cost most would want to pay. $10/year, is it?
>>> make sure it has XP Pro (not
>>> home),
>>
>> Why?
>
>To be as fair as possible.
Why? Please describe exactly what's given up and why it should apply.
>>> add some software that comes close to iLife (if you can find any),
>>> etc.
>>
>> ...or just download it, or get it free with your digital camera...
>
>What digital camera comes with something similar to iPhoto and iMovie? And
>are you adding that to the cost of the PC?
On the PC, digital cameras come with lots of software. Same story
with my firewire card, my video card, and many other peripherals I've
purchased - they come with *lots* of video, MP3, DVD, and other
software for creation.
>>
>>> Oh, and for the fun of it, add MS Office WITH PowerPoint to both
>>> systems.
>>
>> And with Access too. Ooops!
>Most home users do not use Access... Add File Maker Pro to both systems if
>you want a general database. It is true, however, that Access does not
>exist for Mac.
Then let's revisit that Office Basic system. Oops - no Office Basic
for Mac either. I see a pattern here....
>>> Now, if you want, add $15 to the Mac to get a Logitech two button
>>> laser scroll mouse, many advanced users would want this. You will have to
>>> do some approximating... Not all features on one will be on the other.
>>>
>>> If you can show comparable Win machines for various levels on any major
>>> venders site, I will change the point. I have done the comparisons many
>>> times in the past; low end, high end, laptop, etc - in SOME categories the
>>> Mac is beaten, but overall they do VERY well.
>>
>> Not really; the Mac loses - badly.
>
>Do the comparisons... I have. Many times. Mac does very well. Mac does
>not, however, meet the low end PC's that do not have the features all Macs
>come with.
The Mac doesn't do well at all.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
Agreed. So we have $400-ish for a PC, and $1800 for an entry-level
PowerMac. Now, perhaps YOU can find $1400 worth of difference there,
but most people can't.
>>>>> they tend to use less power (which saves money),
>>>> Not really.
>>> Power DOES cost money. Really.
>> That wasn't the part I disagreed with.
>Care to elaborate?
The part of saving money as a significant issue. A PC costs what -
$35 per year to operate? You really think a Mac is going to be
appreciably less?
>>>>> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
>>>> I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
>>>
>>> Macs have generally had some of the lowest dead on arrival rates and rate
>>> with the lowest repair costs. I do tech work for people - I make a LOT more
>>> money from my Windows people...
>>
>> That's nice - Consumer Reports doesn't see the differences you do.
>> Given how many more PCs are used than Macs, the statistics you collect
>> probably are neither normalized nor material.
>
>I have posted links in this thread. They have been criticized for being
>dated... They may be. Do you have any new info to show that things have
>changed? Until then, the point stands.
Check out consumer reports sometime.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
It isn't a bug. Rather than having flippy folders go flying away, it
goes to the bottom (a predictable behavior) and you can then sort it
if you want.
Michael Klatt
> On 10/14/03 8:56 AM, in article
> 2cb75565.03101...@posting.google.com, "Michael Klatt"
> <mdk...@ou.edu> wrote:
>
> Action menu is a way to get to the contextual menu without having to use the
> right mouse button. This is a HUGE advantage for many people. If you
> disagree, you have probably not worked extensively with young children,
> retired folks, and other newbie's. For many of us in this group, who do not
> mind the second button, it is not a big deal.
>
click" menu button on my keyboard, so I don't need to use the mouse
for this.
> > Ditto for hot keys.
>
> Mac hot keys tend to be more consistent and easier to use. Examples:
> creating new folders and finding the original of an alias / shortcut.
>
There is inconsistency with Windows shortcut keys, but wouldn't this
be the fault of the individual applications? Maybe the Mac OS API's
are better at enforcing this interface element.
> > Also, you seem to say that Java 2 is not available for XP.
>
> Available, yes.... Standard, not the last time I checked.
>
I was just trying to point out that you didn't note that it was
available for XP like you did for other items.
> > As for pure subjectivity, is it a big deal that a Mac has "crisper
> > icons"?
>
> The point is not subjective. The relative value is. If you are a gamer,
> the one point that says Windows is has newer games may be the most
> important. Add to that the newer video cards for Windows, and a gamer may
> not want to look at any other point. I am not a gamer, so those points do
> not score high for me.
Okay, fair enough. You should put that explanation on the web site.
>
> Very - especially with home made "hobby" machines, but really, just on the
> platform in general.
>
> > And, isn't this at least in part because there is a wider
> > range of hardware that will run under Windows?
>
> Plug and Play works better on Mac.
>
I don't think it's fair to put homebuilt systems in the comparison.
They're obviously going to have problems that aren't inherently the
fault of the hardware or the OS.
> > This argument is closely related to the "greater need to get new drivers", so
> > if it really is legitimate they should be grouped together.
>
> Often it is not even a driver issue... Let me give you an example. One of
> the schools where I work went though a local company to get a bunch of PC's
> (this was before I worked there). They paid extra to have USB cards put in.
> Then, when the machines did not work, they AGAIN paid to have the cards
> disabled - which is a pain, they come and go randomly from the device
> manager. Driver problem? Perhaps - I have not needed USB on those machines
> so I just leave them inactive.
>
I don't know if it's possible to quantify hardware problems, but you
should really try to find some concrete numbers here. Unlike
subjective items, this really needs some more support. I could
anecodotally note the problems I had with a Powerbook modem and call
that a Mac disadvantage. Even with statistics, hardware problems are
hard to find blame for. It may be the hardware itself, the OS, the
host PC, or the person who didn't read the installation instructions.
The only hardware problems I've ever had with PC's came from not
having the original installation disks and having to guess the make
and model of what I was installing. This is where Mac advocates say
that Macs have more built-in support for hardware, but as you note
Windows hardware tends to be more bleeding edge.
> > I just noticed this: it's a disadvantage that you can use a
> > left-handed mouse with Windows?!
>
> Not that you CAN, that all Win mice are either left or right handed. Silly,
> really. Mac gives you choice. That *is* an advantage.
>
I'm not sure what you mean here. What's wrong with having a mouse
designed for the left hand? Anyway, I've seen plenty of symmetric
Windows mice that would work the same from the left or right hand. A
one-button Mac mouse is equally ambidextrous.
> > Why do you list viruses and vulnerabilities as two seperate items?
>
> Because they are separate issues. Many vulnerabilities have nothing to do
> with viruses and vice versa.
>
Which viruses don't rely on security holes? There are vulnerabilities
without exploits but no exploits without vulnerabilities. I think
these should be lumped together under "security issues" or something
similar.
> > This is a good one: Virtual PC is only available on the Mac. Gee, do you
> > think so?
>
> Funny as it is, there IS a version of Virtual PC for Windows. There is no
> version of Virtual Mac for Windows, at least nothing that runs OS X. As a
> side note, VPC does not run on the new G5... If that is not corrected, and
> not other Virtual machine steps up (like Bochs), then Macs will lose this
> point.
>
> > If you're going to play that game it should be a Windows advantage that it
> > runs Windows software without an emulator. If you're trying to point out that
> > you can run Windows software on a Mac you need to phrase it better.
>
> It is now phrased: Virtual PC: allows emulation of a PC, including XP and
> any other PC OS
>
> What would you suggest?
>
Instead of listing VPC as a software advantage, maybe you should put
it up in the Advantages section: "Macs can run Windows software as
well (with additional software)."
> > You also pull out the well-worn TCO argument. This *may* have some legs for
> > OS X in a corporate environment, but how many recurring costs do home users
> > have? For most of that market, initial cost is virtually synonomous with TCO.
>
> For advanced users, perhaps. Then again, Win users have the recurring cost
> of virus software that Mac folks do not. And advanced users tend to be on
> the machine more, so the power costs count more.
PC's use more electricity than Macs?
>
> > Why do you split up font managment into so many different items? I
> > think Mac advocates give this argument way too much emphasis. I'm
> > sure this is a big deal for publishing, but for how many users is this
> > significant? The same can be said for color management. Give the Mac
> > an advantage called "professional desktop publishing" if you want, but
> > don't exaggerate its importance. Fonts are one example of something
> > that you list as both an advantage for OS X and disadvantage for XP.
> > This will skew the the +/- tally.
>
> Again, I do not claim that each point is of equal value to each other. I do
> not see what you mean where I have a disadvantage on the Win side and the
> same point on the Mac side as an advantage. Please point out what you mean
> and this will be corrected...
>
You have "Font folder oddities" listed as a PC disadvantage and
several font related items listed as Mac advantages. If you
consolidated the font stuff it would make things clearer. Maybe
should ditch the advantage/disadvantage scheme, and just score each
item for the PC or for the Mac. An advantage for one is automatically
a disadvantage for the other. I think one of the links you provided
does this. For example:
CATEGORY MAC PC
Fonts X
Latest hardware X
> > Your software arguments are seriously flawed. For example, I may not
> > be able to get BB Edit, but are you implying that you can't get a
> > similar text editor for Windows?
>
> I do not know of one. Do you? Common and cheap? If you can give me a link
> I will remove that piece of software from the list.
>
I like Crimson Edit: http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
> > If you're going to focus on specific software titles you probably need an
> > entire web page devoted to Windows-only software.
>
> Do you have titles? Sites where I can check things out?
>
Off the top of my head, MS Flight Simulator.
> > Many of the OS X advantages (POSIX compatibility, free developer
> > tools, etc.) come from it's BSD heritage. You can install the free
> > Cygwin *nix emulator on Windows and get many of the same advantages.
>
> You may be able to get it for Windows. It comes with a Mac. Plenty of
> software / shareware on the Mac is based on the BSD heritage. Cool, eh?
>
I think's it important to note that Cygwin is available. There's the
disadvantage that it's not quite the same as running *nix, but there's
also the advantage that it's not quite the same as running *nix :-).
> > I don't think your web page is going to change anyone's mind.
>
> Probably not. But it does seem to slow the Mac bashers down... Gives them
> something to think about.
>
I think the Mac bashers already have their minds made up. So do the
Windows bashers. But these are the vocal minority, so perhaps there's
hope for those reasonable folks in the middle. I don't understand why
people get so worked up about a computer.
>
> Can you suggest any good ones that are relevant to the points made?
Hmmmmm...Google returns a few promising hits for "mac advocacy" but
not much for "windows advocacy". I guess Windows stands on its own
merits ;-).
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>what are ya, on crack? how are you configuring these things? a dell 2400
>w/ p4 2.2ghz chip, 256 mb ram, 80gb hd, choice of 19" crt of 15" tft, xp pro
>costs about $1100, although you can get deals for much cheaper. a firewire
>card wil cost you about $25. XP comes built in w/ movie editing and image
>tools. a cheap emac w/ the same will run you close to $1500.
LOL. You can get the 2400s (and other Dells) on sales for far, FAR
less than that. I saw $191 for that system (no monitor) lately, but
with a Celeron CPU (still faster than the Mac..).
Snit
Db1jb.15$XH3.1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Sure, a newly created folder should be selected. Just not placed at the
bottom. Anyway, despite my calling it a bug here, it is just a different
way - and not on my list.
It is silly to design bugs like that though. :)
Snit
G51jb.13$kH3.1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Ok... Spent more time than I really wanted to...
Priced a Dell vs. an eMac
Both 256MB Ram, CD Drive, no floppy, 17 inch monitor, Office with PowerPoint
(Mac came with 3 user license, so it would be cheaper if buying in bulk).
XP Pro and 1 yr subscription to a virus checker on PC, added tilt and swirl
on Mac just 'cause I thought it would be cool.
Dell: 1266.00
Mac: 992.95 (add $50 for non edu pricing)
Oh, and when putting the Dell together, I had warnings that things were not
compatible - I had to troubleshoot the system JUST TO PRICE IT.
ed
you're gonna have to provide more details than that, because your numbers
don't add up. you're claiming low-end on each, but a low-end dell w/ those
specs ends up much cheaper than that, and a low-end mac w/ those specs ends
up much higher than that. i.e. the cheapest new computer on the apple site
is that 800mhz emac @ $799, +$50 ram, +59 stand, +$399.95 for office, and i
don't see where you're coming up with $992.95- that's $1307.95 according to
apple, and that's only w/ a 40gb hd (there's no option to increase the
internal drive, but they offer an external 160gb for $229).
ed
Kevin <nom...@nospam.invalid> typed:
> f...@bar.com wrote:
>> It isn't a bug. Rather than having flippy folders go flying away, it
>> goes to the bottom (a predictable behavior) and you can then sort it
>> if you want.
>
> it NOT break the whole sort. If I tell a folder to sort files
> alphabetically, I'd like it to KEEP sorting them alphabetically, not
> do it just this once and then do whatever it wants until I tell it to
> sort again.
>
> It may be convenient to work with new folders at the bottom (OK, I'll
> grant that, it IS convenient) but it breaks the consistency of the
> sorting pattern.
>
> And the next time I look at the folder list, is it still at the
> bottom? Or is it at the top now? In my experience, it moves to the
> top.
no, the next time it's where it should be based on your preferences
regarding sorting.
> Nothing WRONG, just not as consistent.
it's entirely consistent- new items are *always* at the bottom. perhaps
what you mean is that it's not consistent with the mac way. =)
Snit
Tg1jb.18$HN3.2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
I have not been able to find any evidence that Windows does have better Java
support. Do you have anything to support that claim.
BTW, old quote from you, "if you wanted to say it *includes* java
out of the box as an advantage, that's fine". So I took your advice, which
you now claim is biased.
For that matter, when you were able to support your claims, I happily made
changes to the site. For example I removed info on faxing, even though OS X
10.3 does it better, it is not clearly enough ahead to warrant a item. I
also moved Virtual PC to the software section. I was and am open to
discussing points, but just because YOU say something does not mean it is
so. I, and others, were able to refute many of your claims. Please offer
support for your points. As I have repeatedly shown in the past, I happily
make corrections - and even have done so for you.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
Responded to in detail elsewhere in the thread
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
If it is not a bug, then why does the refresh button not refresh but sort?
Again - not a big deal. Not even on my list.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>Ok... Spent more time than I really wanted to...
>Priced a Dell vs. an eMac
Try again. Dell vs. PowerMac, starting at $1770 vs. a few hundred
bucks for the PC.
>Both 256MB Ram, CD Drive, no floppy, 17 inch monitor, Office with PowerPoint
>(Mac came with 3 user license, so it would be cheaper if buying in bulk).
>XP Pro and 1 yr subscription to a virus checker on PC, added tilt and swirl
>on Mac just 'cause I thought it would be cool.
>Dell: 1266.00
>Mac: 992.95 (add $50 for non edu pricing)
Try again. Mac 1.6 $1770 vs. DellSB - Dimension 4600 2.4Ghz P4
Desktop with 256MB DDR SDRAM, 64MB nVidia GF4MX AGP, 40GB HD, and FREE
MS OfficeBasic 2003 (worth $100) for $499 after Rebate with FREE
Shipping!
The Mac is $1270 more, offers less speed for vastly more money. Even
after the 80G HDD, 'Superdrive', and GF5200MX, it's still $779, vs.
$1970 for the Mac. $1191 more money for the Mac.
Your suggestion that the Mac and PC are similarly priced is absurd.
>Oh, and when putting the Dell together, I had warnings that things were not
>compatible - I had to troubleshoot the system JUST TO PRICE IT.
No problems here, naturally.
f...@bar.com
>f...@bar.com wrote:
>> It isn't a bug. Rather than having flippy folders go flying away, it
>> goes to the bottom (a predictable behavior) and you can then sort it
>> if you want.
>
>OK, I can see how that could be by design. But I'd much rather have it NOT
>break the whole sort. If I tell a folder to sort files alphabetically, I'd
>like it to KEEP sorting them alphabetically, not do it just this once and
>then do whatever it wants until I tell it to sort again.
>
>It may be convenient to work with new folders at the bottom (OK, I'll grant
>that, it IS convenient) but it breaks the consistency of the sorting pattern.
>
>And the next time I look at the folder list, is it still at the bottom? Or
>is it at the top now? In my experience, it moves to the top.
>
>Nothing WRONG, just not as consistent.
>
>I have to periodically sort my Start menu items since new items get added
>to the bottom of the list and looks ugly.
>
That's very poor engineering. How can a user not familiar with
Windows know where the folder they just created resides? They either
have to know it's called "New Folder" or they can just look at the
newly created folder at the bottom of the list, a logical place for
it.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
When it comes to trusting your numbers or the numbers on the manufacturers
web sites, sorry, you lose.
>
>>>>>> they tend to use less power (which saves money),
>>>>> Not really.
>>>> Power DOES cost money. Really.
>>> That wasn't the part I disagreed with.
>> Care to elaborate?
>
> The part of saving money as a significant issue. A PC costs what -
> $35 per year to operate? You really think a Mac is going to be
> appreciably less?
Yes. Esp. when looking at all the costs.
>
>>>>>> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
>>>>> I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
>>>>
>>>> Macs have generally had some of the lowest dead on arrival rates and rate
>>>> with the lowest repair costs. I do tech work for people - I make a LOT
>>>> more
>>>> money from my Windows people...
>>>
>>> That's nice - Consumer Reports doesn't see the differences you do.
>>> Given how many more PCs are used than Macs, the statistics you collect
>>> probably are neither normalized nor material.
>>
>> I have posted links in this thread. They have been criticized for being
>> dated... They may be. Do you have any new info to show that things have
>> changed? Until then, the point stands.
>
> Check out consumer reports sometime.
Do you have a link? I do not get the mag.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
www.gotapex.com, www.fatwallet.com, www.anandtech.com (forums,
hotdeals).
My numbers are flawless. You're obviously new here. Many helpless
Maccies have tried to derail my numbers; all have failed.
>>>>>>> they tend to use less power (which saves money),
>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>> Power DOES cost money. Really.
>>>> That wasn't the part I disagreed with.
>>> Care to elaborate?
>>
>> The part of saving money as a significant issue. A PC costs what -
>> $35 per year to operate? You really think a Mac is going to be
>> appreciably less?
>
>Yes. Esp. when looking at all the costs.
No, it won't be appreciably less. You might save a dollar or two per
year, maybe, on a good year with a full moon. Please.
>>>>>>> they tend to need fewer repairs (which saves money),
>>>>>> I haven't noticed any changes or differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Macs have generally had some of the lowest dead on arrival rates and rate
>>>>> with the lowest repair costs. I do tech work for people - I make a LOT
>>>>> more
>>>>> money from my Windows people...
>>>>
>>>> That's nice - Consumer Reports doesn't see the differences you do.
>>>> Given how many more PCs are used than Macs, the statistics you collect
>>>> probably are neither normalized nor material.
>>>
>>> I have posted links in this thread. They have been criticized for being
>>> dated... They may be. Do you have any new info to show that things have
>>> changed? Until then, the point stands.
>>
>> Check out consumer reports sometime.
>
>Do you have a link? I do not get the mag.
Surprising for someone who claims to be so into consumer results and
experiences. You should buy a few and read.
ed
my response to your last post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=DWB%25a.1602%24%25b1.568%40newssvr25.news.prodigy.com&rnum=15
supported configurations:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/system-configurations.html
third party ports:
http://java.sun.com/cgi-bin/java-ports.cgi : " Sun Microsystems, Inc.
provides this list as a convenience to our customers. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
has not tested any of the following referenced software and cannot be held
responsible for its actual operation or functionality."
additionally, look at api's such as Java3D- no support *at all* on macs.
> BTW, old quote from you, "if you wanted to say it *includes* java
> out of the box as an advantage, that's fine". So I took your advice,
> which you now claim is biased.
and it is, but an advantage for windows is the *better* java support.
let's quote my whole statement, not just the selective quoting you just did:
> > but your statement is still incorrect- xp *has* java support, in
> > fact, it has *better* java support, being one of the primary
> > platforms sun codes for. now, if you wanted to say it *includes* java
> > out of the box as an advantage, that's fine, but it does *NOT* have
> > *better* support.
==> > yup, but you might want to add for a windows advantage that it has
> > better and more thorough java support from sun, being that it's one of
> >the platforms sun develops for.
> For that matter, when you were able to support your claims, I happily
> made changes to the site.
see link above- it was included in the origional thread.
> For example I removed info on faxing, even
> though OS X
> 10.3 does it better, it is not clearly enough ahead to warrant a
> item. I also moved Virtual PC to the software section. I was and am
> open to discussing points, but just because YOU say something does
> not mean it is
> so. I, and others, were able to refute many of your claims. Please
> offer support for your points. As I have repeatedly shown in the
> past, I happily make corrections - and even have done so for you.
other items i previously mentioned include:
1- appleworks- ms works should easily be included as being equivalent,
including MS Word and all (the defacto standard for word processing whether
we like it or not)
2- what's so special about bbedit, compared to other text editors? saaaay,
visual slick edit, or crisp? or jedit? or any of the hundreds and hundreds
of others available for the pc?
3- itunes- if you're going to have that as an advantage, why not, saaay,
windows media player on windows?
4- networking- fewer steps to get on networks is simply crap
5- desktop picture options- not xp can get, xp has it out of the box.
6- disk file format support- you're mixing things up. file formats are file
formats. either your app supports it or it don't. i'm sure you're likely
talking file system support.
7- less frequent hardware upgrading- being slow at getting better stuff is
NOT an advantage.
8- mouse connected to keyboard, xp supports, and whether you have it or not
has nothing to with, and is available oem.
9- you can quickly jump to a short cut in xp
10- recent applications- in xp
11- software selection on startup disk? eh?
12- video chat has been available out of the box for a long, long time
13- big brotherish registration- i think you're talking about activation,
and you apparently don't know what it requires / asks for
14- child window oddities- dependant on the programmer; both os's support
mdi, but don't require it.
15- files in use not being able to be renames or moved is not neccesarily a
disadvantage in a multi-use os
that's a good start.
f...@bar.com
Oh, and add $400 for Office for the Mac (no Small Biz or Basic edition
for the Mac - what a shame...). Granted, no Powerpoint on the PC; how
about you just add $150 for the Mac's Student version of Office (yet
another example of the poorer options on the Macintosh side of
things....) so that's $2120 vs. $780, or about $1340 more money for
the Mac.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>>> The sorting "bug" is not, because SOME people seem to think it makes sense
>>> to have an alphabetically sorted list not be in alphabetical order.
>>
>If it is not a bug, then why does the refresh button not refresh but sort?
The sorting already exists and is unrelated to the refresh button; if
you'd rather, you could just as easily use 'sort' to do the sorting.
Lloyd Parsons
wrote:
Snit, this is very true. When it comes to CHEAP, David is the king!
I've never seen anyone beat him when it comes to finding the cheapest
crap on the market, he's got a real knack for it!
Lloyd
<<much snipped>>
Sandman
> >If you can show comparable Win machines for various levels on any major
> >venders site, I will change the point. I have done the comparisons many
> >times in the past; low end, high end, laptop, etc - in SOME categories the
> >Mac is beaten, but overall they do VERY well.
>
> Not really; the Mac loses - badly.
This is funny David - I saw that you had replied to his post - so I was
expecting a URL to a machine that countered his point - but all I saw was hot
air... Funny.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
If a new item isn't sorted correctly in a otherwise sorted folder, then that
folder loses it's sorting, per definition. The folder is no longer sorted by
name.
And isn't folders always sorted seperately in Windows? So a folder sorted by
name is actually never sorted by name.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> >I have to periodically sort my Start menu items since new items get added
> >to the bottom of the list and looks ugly.
>
> That's very poor engineering. How can a user not familiar with
> Windows know where the folder they just created resides? They either
> have to know it's called "New Folder" or they can just look at the
> newly created folder at the bottom of the list, a logical place for
> it.
Eh? MacOS solution is far more elegant. When you create a new folder, it's
called "untitled folder" and is inserted in the sorting order (after t, before
v) and the list jumps to that location so you can see it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@nospammac.com> wrote:
> > www.gotapex.com, www.fatwallet.com, www.anandtech.com (forums,
> > hotdeals).
> >
> > My numbers are flawless. You're obviously new here. Many helpless
> > Maccies have tried to derail my numbers; all have failed.
> >
> Snit, this is very true. When it comes to CHEAP, David is the king!
>
> I've never seen anyone beat him when it comes to finding the cheapest
> crap on the market, he's got a real knack for it!
Indeed - finding cheap crap is something David excels in! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
----------
In article <bmh3s4$lvvk9$1...@ID-56786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Edwin"
<thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> I am a former Mac owner. My Mac "bashing" consists of disagreeing that
> Macs have any advantage that justifies paying more for them than PCs. It
> also consists of pointing out when the advantage lies with the PC.
>
> Edwin
>
If I have read your more recent posts correctly wrt internal configurations
and such things as VM, I must draw the conclusion that you have next to no
recent experience of being a Mac owner/user, would this be correct?, if so I
believe it puts your Mac bashing nicely in perspective!
Mark Weaver
"Snit" <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:BBB1896C.2AF0A%snit-
> Price any Mac, then price a
> similar PC, with same memory, HD, CD/DVD drive, USB ports, Firewire ports,
> etc...
Apple G5 1.6 -- price $1999
Comparably configured Hp pavilion a310e (configured on HP.com):
ProcessorAMD Athlon(TM) XP 2600+
XP Home Edition
Works/Money 2003/Encarta
Memory256 MB DDR / PC2700
80 GB 7200
CD/DVD Drive4X DVD+RW/+R drive
Front Productivity Ports2 USB 2.0, 1 IEEE 1394 ports + ArcSoft Showbiz
3.5 in. 1.44MB Floppy Drive
128MB NVIDIA GeForce FX(TM) 5200
Integrated 5.1 Capable Sound w/ front audio ports
Harman-Kardon 2-Piece Active Speakers
hp Internet Keyboard, hp Scroller Mouse
price $694.99
> make sure it has XP Pro (not home)
Why? Few home or home office users need the features of XP Pro -- but add
$75 if you do.
> add some software that comes close to iLife (if you can find any),
Pfft. Every Windows machine comes with the equivalent functionality or it
can be had for free download. If a machine has a DVD drive and firewire it
invariably comes bundled with DVD burning software and video editing
software. And there are plenty of excellent freeware photo and mp3 apps to
be had for the downloading (including iTunes in a couple of days). Not to
mention that XP has basic photo browsing built into explorer. I have
perfectably workable (free or bundled) solutions for music (CD DA xtractor,
LAME encoder, MediaPlayer), photos (Fototime's fotoalbum is excellent as is
their hosting service), and DV (Pinnacle, Ulead, and MovieMaker2).
> etc. Oh, and for the fun of it, add MS Office WITH PowerPoint to both
> systems.
But the G5's don't come bundled with Office either -- just the trial
version. Keynote isn't even in the list of included software.
> If you can show comparable Win machines for various levels on any major
> venders site, I will change the point.
Done. The HP machine costs 35% as much as the G5 1.6. Not quite a 3x
difference, but almost. And you can do even better if you watch the for
sales, rebates and/or and coupons.
If the Athlon 2600+ with the lower-speed FSB and standard ATA disc isn't
quite fast enough for you, you can upgrade to the a350y model with a P4,
800MHz FSB and 512M of faster memory and still be under $1000 (less than
half the cost of the G5 1.6). But for that money, you'd have 512M of RAM
instead of 128 on the G5, a
floppy drive, both a CD and DVDR drive and 128M instead of 64M of video RAM
on the Geforce FX 5200. IOW more machine still for less than half the price
(and, again, you can do better if you keep an eye out for
sales/coupons/rebates).
Lloyd Parsons
<wea...@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote:
Your post brings out the obvious problem. The entire Pavilion and
Presario line is geared towards the home consumer market, not business.
Apple's G5 certainly isn't geared to that market in any way. This
makes for comparisons that are idiotic.
If you were to price up the G5 against the HP Professional
workstations, the disparity isn't nearly the same, but the two machines
are geared to the same market and it makes it a fair comparison.
I would say that ANY of the current consumer-level boxes represent
overkill in the home, regardless of manufacturer.
You will never get an Apple designed for consumer space to price as
cheaply as a wintel or amd box geared to that same market without going
way up the food chain, and then only in tier 1 boxes.
But if you are going to compare a G5 to anything lower than the
Professional workstations, the nearest would be the EVO D530 series.
Configured similarly to the Pavilion you show, the D530 would cost
$1330 at HP's website. This is with the 2.4Ghz/P4 because the 530
doesn't come with AMD chip, and the video is only a 64mb because they
don't offer as a configuration, a 128Mb video card.
So you would still save money on the HP, but not as much. In the
professional workstation, the Apple would be cheaper.
Lloyd
Mark Weaver
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@nospammac.com> wrote in message
> >
> Your post brings out the obvious problem. The entire Pavilion and
> Presario line is geared towards the home consumer market, not business.
> Apple's G5 certainly isn't geared to that market in any way. This
> makes for comparisons that are idiotic.
>
The G5 isn't geared to the home / consumer market in any way? Then why
bundle the iLife apps but not an office suite in the basic configuration
(what use are iPhoto and iTunes on a professional workstation?) Why include
gaming-oriented graphics cards and surround-sound audio? Looks to me that
Apple clearly has the consumer market in mind to with the G5s -- obviously,
the consumer market isn't the *only* target, but it is one of them.
Steve Mackay
> On 10/14/03 5:59 AM, in article
> ejSib.27066$%C5.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com, "Steve Mackay"
> <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On 10/14/03 12:48 AM, in article
>>> gmgravesnos-0D10...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "George
>>> Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Pay a premium? No... Macs cost about the same as PC's from major
>>> distributors (say Dell),
>>
>
> I have on my site that Windows serves the hobbyist better. Yes, as a
> hobby you can make cheap computers. You *can* do the same with Mac,
> at least to some extent, but it is not as easy. Hence, Windows got
> that point.
Yes, and I have done just that. I've built a Mac using a standard ATX case,
a Refurbed GigE mobo, etc..
>>> they tend to use less power (which saves money), they tend to need
>>> fewer repairs (which saves money), and in general have a much
>>> better return on investment.
>>
>> Every PC I've built has been reliable as hell. The only exception
>> is a single Soltek KT333 based motherboard taking a dump on me. The
>> Dells we've bought here OTOH haven't been as lucky. EVERY one of
>> them has needed work. EVERY one of them, the onboard NIC has died.
>
> Perhaps. As a rule, however, this is not the case. Homemade
> computers are not tested the way big brand ones are, and
> incompatibilities crop up.
I've never yet seen an incompatibility with either Intel, or AMD boxes I've
built. I've been building my own PCs for at least 7 years.
> I have seen it too many times to be
> convinced otherwise.
What incompatibilities have you seen?
> Even the people I know who claim to be
> exceptions rarely are - they just neglect to talk about all the
> tinkering they have to do to maintain their machines. Are you an
> exception? Perhaps - but if so you are in the minority. And lucky.
Lloyd Parsons
<wea...@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote:
Oh please! I won't argue that those things are on it as a standard
load. But to argue that it is geared towards the consumer market is
ridiculous, imho. Pricing alone puts it out of the vast majority of
that market.
Putting out ads with it are certainly designed to grab interest, but
then the consumer will most likely move to something down the food
chain a bit. The G5 is the 'grabber'.
Lloyd
Snit
2cb75565.03101...@posting.google.com, "Michael Klatt"
<mdk...@ou.edu> wrote:
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:<BBB1CD58.2AF3C%snit-...@cableone.net>...
>> On 10/14/03 8:56 AM, in article
>> 2cb75565.03101...@posting.google.com, "Michael Klatt"
>> <mdk...@ou.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Action menu is a way to get to the contextual menu without having to use the
>> right mouse button. This is a HUGE advantage for many people. If you
>> disagree, you have probably not worked extensively with young children,
>> retired folks, and other newbie's. For many of us in this group, who do not
>> mind the second button, it is not a big deal.
>>
> This probably isn't what you mean by action menu, but I have a "right
> click" menu button on my keyboard, so I don't need to use the mouse
> for this.
That is like Mac fans calling the control-click equal to the right click.
It is not.
>
>>> Ditto for hot keys.
>>
>> Mac hot keys tend to be more consistent and easier to use. Examples:
>> creating new folders and finding the original of an alias / shortcut.
>>
> There is inconsistency with Windows shortcut keys, but wouldn't this
> be the fault of the individual applications? Maybe the Mac OS API's
> are better at enforcing this interface element.
Where ever the fault lies, it is still part of the XP experience.
>
>>> Also, you seem to say that Java 2 is not available for XP.
>>
>> Available, yes.... Standard, not the last time I checked.
>
> I was just trying to point out that you didn't note that it was
> available for XP like you did for other items.
Hmmm... I think out of the box implied that, but it is inconsistent with the
other points. Thanks. Corrected.
>
>>> As for pure subjectivity, is it a big deal that a Mac has "crisper
>>> icons"?
>>
>> The point is not subjective. The relative value is. If you are a gamer,
>> the one point that says Windows is has newer games may be the most
>> important. Add to that the newer video cards for Windows, and a gamer may
>> not want to look at any other point. I am not a gamer, so those points do
>> not score high for me.
>
> Okay, fair enough. You should put that explanation on the web site.
Good point. Updated.
>
>>
>> Very - especially with home made "hobby" machines, but really, just on the
>> platform in general.
>>
>>> And, isn't this at least in part because there is a wider
>>> range of hardware that will run under Windows?
>>
>> Plug and Play works better on Mac.
>>
> I don't think it's fair to put homebuilt systems in the comparison.
> They're obviously going to have problems that aren't inherently the
> fault of the hardware or the OS.
Even on big brand computers, plug and play works better on the Mac.
>
>
>>> This argument is closely related to the "greater need to get new drivers",
>>> so
>>> if it really is legitimate they should be grouped together.
>>
>> Often it is not even a driver issue... Let me give you an example. One of
>> the schools where I work went though a local company to get a bunch of PC's
>> (this was before I worked there). They paid extra to have USB cards put in.
>> Then, when the machines did not work, they AGAIN paid to have the cards
>> disabled - which is a pain, they come and go randomly from the device
>> manager. Driver problem? Perhaps - I have not needed USB on those machines
>> so I just leave them inactive.
>>
> I don't know if it's possible to quantify hardware problems, but you
> should really try to find some concrete numbers here. Unlike
> subjective items, this really needs some more support. I could
> anecodotally note the problems I had with a Powerbook modem and call
> that a Mac disadvantage. Even with statistics, hardware problems are
> hard to find blame for. It may be the hardware itself, the OS, the
> host PC, or the person who didn't read the installation instructions.
> The only hardware problems I've ever had with PC's came from not
> having the original installation disks and having to guess the make
> and model of what I was installing. This is where Mac advocates say
> that Macs have more built-in support for hardware, but as you note
> Windows hardware tends to be more bleeding edge.
True, one case does not make a point... But the overwhelming evidence that I
have seen in person and on the web makes this point quite clearly.
>>> I just noticed this: it's a disadvantage that you can use a
>>> left-handed mouse with Windows?!
>>
>> Not that you CAN, that all Win mice are either left or right handed. Silly,
>> really. Mac gives you choice. That *is* an advantage.
>>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. What's wrong with having a mouse
> designed for the left hand? Anyway, I've seen plenty of symmetric
> Windows mice that would work the same from the left or right hand. A
> one-button Mac mouse is equally ambidextrous.
You have to set two button mice to be left or right handed. On a single
user computer this is not a big deal (if you are knowledgeable and / or
right handed, I suppose) In a shared computing environment, this is a huge
pain.
>>> Why do you list viruses and vulnerabilities as two seperate items?
>>
>> Because they are separate issues. Many vulnerabilities have nothing to do
>> with viruses and vice versa.
>>
> Which viruses don't rely on security holes? There are vulnerabilities
> without exploits but no exploits without vulnerabilities. I think
> these should be lumped together under "security issues" or something
> similar.
Having many unneeded open ports is a security issue that can be exploited by
viruses AND other means. But I do see where they are related in many ways.
>
>>> This is a good one: Virtual PC is only available on the Mac. Gee, do you
>>> think so?
>>
>> Funny as it is, there IS a version of Virtual PC for Windows. There is no
>> version of Virtual Mac for Windows, at least nothing that runs OS X. As a
>> side note, VPC does not run on the new G5... If that is not corrected, and
>> not other Virtual machine steps up (like Bochs), then Macs will lose this
>> point.
>>
>>> If you're going to play that game it should be a Windows advantage that it
>>> runs Windows software without an emulator. If you're trying to point out
>>> that
>>> you can run Windows software on a Mac you need to phrase it better.
>>
>> It is now phrased: Virtual PC: allows emulation of a PC, including XP and
>> any other PC OS
>>
>> What would you suggest?
>>
> Instead of listing VPC as a software advantage, maybe you should put
> it up in the Advantages section: "Macs can run Windows software as
> well (with additional software)."
Actually used to be there, but moved it when people pointed out that it was
a piece of software that was unique to the Mac. Sorta makes sense to be in
either place to me. For now I will leave it.
>>> You also pull out the well-worn TCO argument. This *may* have some legs for
>>> OS X in a corporate environment, but how many recurring costs do home users
>>> have? For most of that market, initial cost is virtually synonomous with
>>> TCO.
>>
>> For advanced users, perhaps. Then again, Win users have the recurring cost
>> of virus software that Mac folks do not. And advanced users tend to be on
>> the machine more, so the power costs count more.
>
> PC's use more electricity than Macs?
Yes.
>
>>
>>> Why do you split up font managment into so many different items? I
>>> think Mac advocates give this argument way too much emphasis. I'm
>>> sure this is a big deal for publishing, but for how many users is this
>>> significant? The same can be said for color management. Give the Mac
>>> an advantage called "professional desktop publishing" if you want, but
>>> don't exaggerate its importance. Fonts are one example of something
>>> that you list as both an advantage for OS X and disadvantage for XP.
>>> This will skew the the +/- tally.
>>
>> Again, I do not claim that each point is of equal value to each other. I do
>> not see what you mean where I have a disadvantage on the Win side and the
>> same point on the Mac side as an advantage. Please point out what you mean
>> and this will be corrected...
>>
> You have "Font folder oddities" listed as a PC disadvantage and
> several font related items listed as Mac advantages.
The Mac font advantages are not opposites of the Windows oddity.
> If you consolidated the font stuff it would make things clearer. Maybe should
> ditch the advantage/disadvantage scheme, and just score each item for the PC
> or for the Mac. An advantage for one is automatically a disadvantage for the
> other. I think one of the links you provided does this. For example:
>
> CATEGORY MAC PC
> Fonts X
> Latest hardware X
I have thought about that, but I think that makes each point look equally
weighed even more than my current method.
>
>>> Your software arguments are seriously flawed. For example, I may not
>>> be able to get BB Edit, but are you implying that you can't get a
>>> similar text editor for Windows?
>>
>> I do not know of one. Do you? Common and cheap? If you can give me a link
>> I will remove that piece of software from the list.
>>
> I like Crimson Edit: http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
Will be removed. They have different strengths, but seem pretty comparable.
>
>>> If you're going to focus on specific software titles you probably need an
>>> entire web page devoted to Windows-only software.
>>
>> Do you have titles? Sites where I can check things out?
>>
> Off the top of my head, MS Flight Simulator.
While not strictly a game (many use it for training purposes) it is, for the
most part a game. I do have on the Windows advantages games. Perhaps that
should be moved to the software section.
>>> Many of the OS X advantages (POSIX compatibility, free developer
>>> tools, etc.) come from it's BSD heritage. You can install the free
>>> Cygwin *nix emulator on Windows and get many of the same advantages.
>>
>> You may be able to get it for Windows. It comes with a Mac. Plenty of
>> software / shareware on the Mac is based on the BSD heritage. Cool, eh?
>>
> I think's it important to note that Cygwin is available. There's the
> disadvantage that it's not quite the same as running *nix, but there's
> also the advantage that it's not quite the same as running *nix :-).
Seems like you can get a large subset of POSIX for Windows... Added that.
>
>>> I don't think your web page is going to change anyone's mind.
>>
>> Probably not. But it does seem to slow the Mac bashers down... Gives them
>> something to think about.
>>
> I think the Mac bashers already have their minds made up. So do the
> Windows bashers. But these are the vocal minority, so perhaps there's
> hope for those reasonable folks in the middle. I don't understand why
> people get so worked up about a computer.
Nor do I. Well, I do when it effects my job - I run computer labs. It
really bothers me when schools want to use Windows when Macs would serve
them better and be cheaper - seems like a waste of my time and tax payer
money.
>> Can you suggest any good ones that are relevant to the points made?
>
> Hmmmmm...Google returns a few promising hits for "mac advocacy" but
> not much for "windows advocacy". I guess Windows stands on its own
> merits ;-).
There are some sites which are anti-mac... But few pro Windows ones.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:07:50 GMT, "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> what are ya, on crack? how are you configuring these things? a dell 2400
>> w/ p4 2.2ghz chip, 256 mb ram, 80gb hd, choice of 19" crt of 15" tft, xp pro
>> costs about $1100, although you can get deals for much cheaper. a firewire
>> card wil cost you about $25. XP comes built in w/ movie editing and image
>> tools. a cheap emac w/ the same will run you close to $1500.
>
> LOL. You can get the 2400s (and other Dells) on sales for far, FAR
> less than that. I saw $191 for that system (no monitor) lately, but
> with a Celeron CPU (still faster than the Mac..).
Again - I trust the web sites prices more than anything in here. Web sites
(Dell / Apple) support my point.
Snit
K33jb.1130$cF4...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:08:49 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok... Spent more time than I really wanted to...
>> Priced a Dell vs. an eMac
>
> Try again. Dell vs. PowerMac, starting at $1770 vs. a few hundred
> bucks for the PC.
>
>> Both 256MB Ram, CD Drive, no floppy, 17 inch monitor, Office with PowerPoint
>> (Mac came with 3 user license, so it would be cheaper if buying in bulk).
>> XP Pro and 1 yr subscription to a virus checker on PC, added tilt and swirl
>> on Mac just 'cause I thought it would be cool.
>> Dell: 1266.00
>> Mac: 992.95 (add $50 for non edu pricing)
>
> Try again. Mac 1.6 $1770 vs. DellSB - Dimension 4600 2.4Ghz P4
> Desktop with 256MB DDR SDRAM, 64MB nVidia GF4MX AGP, 40GB HD, and FREE
> MS OfficeBasic 2003 (worth $100) for $499 after Rebate with FREE
> Shipping!
>
> The Mac is $1270 more, offers less speed for vastly more money. Even
> after the 80G HDD, 'Superdrive', and GF5200MX, it's still $779, vs.
> $1970 for the Mac. $1191 more money for the Mac.
>
> Your suggestion that the Mac and PC are similarly priced is absurd.
Again - I trust the web sites prices more than anything in here. Web sites
(Dell / Apple) support my point.
>
Snit
>> web sites, sorry, you lose.
>
> www.gotapex.com, www.fatwallet.com, www.anandtech.com (forums,
> hotdeals).
>
> My numbers are flawless. You're obviously new here. Many helpless
> Maccies have tried to derail my numbers; all have failed.
Again - I trust the web sites prices more than anything in here. Web sites
Snit
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> I have not been able to find any evidence that Windows does have
>> better Java support. Do you have anything to support that claim.
>
> my response to your last post:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=DWB%25a.1602%
> 24%25b1.568%40newssvr25.news.prodigy.com&rnum=15
>
> supported configurations:
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/system-configurations.html
> third party ports:
> http://java.sun.com/cgi-bin/java-ports.cgi : " Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> provides this list as a convenience to our customers. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> has not tested any of the following referenced software and cannot be held
> responsible for its actual operation or functionality."
Nothing in there says Mac Java is in any way inferior.
> additionally, look at api's such as Java3D- no support *at all* on macs.
Hmmm... May have a point here. Can you show me any support for this and
show me some place where it matters?
> other items i previously mentioned include:
> 1- appleworks- ms works should easily be included as being equivalent,
> including MS Word and all (the defacto standard for word processing whether
> we like it or not)
MS Word is NOT a part of MS Works. And AppleWorks, while not being great,
is better than MS Works.
> 2- what's so special about bbedit, compared to other text editors? saaaay,
> visual slick edit, or crisp? or jedit? or any of the hundreds and hundreds
> of others available for the pc?
None of the editors you mention come close, at least not at a reasonable
price. Elsewhere in this thread a real PC editor was pointed out, so BB
Edit has been removed.
> 3- itunes- if you're going to have that as an advantage, why not, saaay,
> windows media player on windows?
Because iTunes does MUCH more and is fairly consistently rated better in
reviews.
> 4- networking- fewer steps to get on networks is simply crap
Now you are just getting whiney. Please stick to points.
> 5- desktop picture options- not xp can get, xp has it out of the box.
Really, how do you set XP to select a random PDF from folder every 10
minutes to use as your desktop?
> 6- disk file format support- you're mixing things up. file formats are file
> formats. either your app supports it or it don't. i'm sure you're likely
> talking file system support.
Fixed.
> 7- less frequent hardware upgrading- being slow at getting better stuff is
> NOT an advantage.
Never said it was. Rapid obsolescence IS a disadvantage, however you try to
twist it.
> 8- mouse connected to keyboard, xp supports, and whether you have it or not
> has nothing to with, and is available oem.
It is not the standard for most systems.
> 9- you can quickly jump to a short cut in xp
Mac: Command+R or File>Show Original. What is the equal on Windows?
> 10- recent applications- in xp
Hmmm, they have added that to the start menu. Fixed.
> 11- software selection on startup disk? eh?
Software selection OF startup disk. In a control panel... Simple GUI.
> 12- video chat has been available out of the box for a long, long time
Until iChat AV, it has not really been in the consumer area. Ichat is zero
config and easy to use. Still Windows DOES have this, even if not done as
well... So, point removed.
> 13- big brotherish registration- i think you're talking about activation,
> and you apparently don't know what it requires / asks for
If you update your computer you may have to call MS and explain it to them
what you are doing. THAT IS UBSURD!
> 14- child window oddities- dependant on the programmer; both os's support
> mdi, but don't require it.
Name one common program that does that on Mac.
> 15- files in use not being able to be renames or moved is not neccesarily a
> disadvantage in a multi-use os
Covered in the past. Repeatedly.
Still, thank you for your points. And please note, where you (or others)
had a point, I changed the site.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
If sorting is unrelated to refresh, then why does refresh re-sort? If it is
supposed to place the folder at the bottom of the list, refreshing should
not change that.
Snit
141020032310147966%lloydp...@nospammac.com, "Lloyd Parsons"
<lloydp...@nospammac.com> wrote:
And there is no doubt you can find/make cheap PC's - the question is can you
go to Dell and get a comparable machine for a similar price. The Dell /
Apple web sites indicate that the prices are close or that Mac is actually
cheaper. Because this changes over time, I have not added this to the Mac
side.
George Graves
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And honestly, who would? After all, what is a home-made computer other
than a collection of parts very similar to the ones used in commercially
built machines? The chip sets and Intel or AMD processors haven't been
tested in thousands, if not tens of thousands of Winboxen? The MB? The
drives? Are these all not off the shelf products sold to a commodity
market where they are all pretty much alike? Frankly, if one uses
components from reputable manufacturers such as Abit, IBM, ATI,
Sound-Blaster, Sony, TEAC, ACER, Samsung, and and hundreds of others,
there is no reason why your home-made computer shouldn't work just as
well as a Dell, Compaq, Sony or any of a dozen or more "brand names."
> > I have seen it too many times to be
> > convinced otherwise.
Well, I suppose that there are some really cheap no-name parts that one
could assemble to come-up with a computer of dubious reliability and
compatibility, but I'd think that you would really have to try hard. I
mean these things are commodities, fer chrissake, built to be
interchangeable in a market where proft margins are razor thin and the
parts are sold in their untold millions. I've seen PCs built out of the
cheapest motherboards with no-name chipsets on them used in home-made
systems consisting of recycled cases, used powersupplies. keyboards and
sometimes even discarded HDs that work just fine, thank you. I just
can't see where all of these incompatibilities could come from. Now, I
have seen people try to run Linux on cheap systems where the no-name
on-board video systems or audio systems weren't supported, but these
same machines seemed to work fine when Windows was loaded.
> What incompatibilities have you seen?
> > Even the people I know who claim to be
> > exceptions rarely are - they just neglect to talk about all the
> > tinkering they have to do to maintain their machines. Are you an
> > exception? Perhaps - but if so you are in the minority. And lucky.
I've built any number of PCs for both myself and others and some of them
were pretty rock-bottom, parts-wise. They all ran Windows as perfectly
as Windows can be run.
--
George Graves
Mark Weaver
> > bundle the iLife apps but not an office suite in the basic configuration
> > (what use are iPhoto and iTunes on a professional workstation?) Why
include
> > gaming-oriented graphics cards and surround-sound audio? Looks to me
that
> > Apple clearly has the consumer market in mind to with the G5s --
obviously,
> > the consumer market isn't the *only* target, but it is one of them.
> >
> Oh please! I won't argue that those things are on it as a standard
> load. But to argue that it is geared towards the consumer market is
> ridiculous, imho. Pricing alone puts it out of the vast majority of
> that market.
>
Well, pricing is a big part of what puts Apple out of the majority of the
personal computer market in *general* -- you could equally compare the price
of the $1800 17" iMac to the HPs configurations and reach the same
conclusion--namely that the iMac is too expensive and, therefore, that Apple
*couldn't* be targeting it toward the consumer market either. As a consumer
item, a G5 is clearly a premium-priced product, but selling premium-priced
products *is* Apple's current strategy, isn't it?
Consider the Alienware machines--they're at roughly the same price levels as
the G5s but they clearly (premium-priced) consumer products.
Lloyd Parsons
<wea...@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote:
OK, I guess I will have to agree. But I do find that the Apple
products compare fine with other premium brands in many cases. Is
there a premium to be paid with Apple? Sure, I just don't think in
most cases that it is onerous unless we are looking a foo's continuing
quest for cheap! <G>
Lloyd
Snit
gmgravesnos-8584...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "George Graves"
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
"As perfectly as Windows can be run" - perhaps. I did a very quick search
on Google for "Windows XP nightmare". Came up with lots of hits... Some of
them are listed here:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/08/04/xp
http://www.mikeshardware.com/reports/report_winactprob.html
http://www.viewonline.com/pages/editorials/myxpnightmare.htm
Did a search for "Mac OS X nightmare". Few nightmare stories, and the ones
I did find were about 10.0 or 10.1. Seems that not many people have horror
stories about 10.2. Of course, there are always bugs in any big release,
but nothing like the stories that people write about Windows.
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
Again - I trust the web sites prices more than anything in here. Web sites
Snit
"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2003 03:14:03 GMT, Kevin <nom...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> f...@bar.com wrote:
>>> It isn't a bug. Rather than having flippy folders go flying away, it
>>> goes to the bottom (a predictable behavior) and you can then sort it
>>> if you want.
>>
>> OK, I can see how that could be by design. But I'd much rather have it NOT
>> break the whole sort. If I tell a folder to sort files alphabetically, I'd
>> like it to KEEP sorting them alphabetically, not do it just this once and
>> then do whatever it wants until I tell it to sort again.
>>
>> It may be convenient to work with new folders at the bottom (OK, I'll grant
>> that, it IS convenient) but it breaks the consistency of the sorting pattern.
>>
>> And the next time I look at the folder list, is it still at the bottom? Or
>> is it at the top now? In my experience, it moves to the top.
>>
>> Nothing WRONG, just not as consistent.
>>
>> I have to periodically sort my Start menu items since new items get added
>> to the bottom of the list and looks ugly.
>>
>
> That's very poor engineering. How can a user not familiar with
> Windows know where the folder they just created resides? They either
> have to know it's called "New Folder" or they can just look at the
> newly created folder at the bottom of the list, a logical place for
> it.
If a folder is called "New Folder" and is placed in a list that is sorted
alphabetically, why would it be logical to assume it would be at the bottom
of the list (unless it was, indeed, the last alphabetically). For that
matter, why are new folders placed at the bottom of the file list, and not
at the bottom of the folder list?
Snit
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
The noise to information ratio in this thread is pretty poor. Still, I have
had a few good suggestions...
So far I have made changes on every valid, supported point. Most of the
changes were pro-windows, anti-Mac, and yet I bet the Mac basher group in
here still can not accept it. Now, if I said Macs were horrid for some
unknown reason and Windows had everything going for it, they would call me
unbiased.
Snit
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Explains why he prefers PC's
Snit
Weaver" <wea...@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote:
Configured Mac and Dell... Dell has only single proc. Machines it seems...
Anyway, Mac came out to 3,211.00 vs. Dell at 3,940.00.
I have to admit surprise here - the Mac machine is a dual processor, 64 bit,
greater capacity for RAM upgrades (though less expandable in other ways). I
expected the Mac to be more.
Snit
151020030921529351%lloydp...@nospammac.com, "Lloyd Parsons"
<lloydp...@nospammac.com> wrote:
And the Mac actually was cheaper when I did that comparison. I have to
admit I was surprised. I expected the Dell to be somewhat cheaper. I may
have added some option to the Dell I could have left out or something? Half
the time when you build a machine on their site you have to go back and
troubleshoot it just to get it to work on paper.
> I would say that ANY of the current consumer-level boxes represent
> overkill in the home, regardless of manufacturer.
>
> You will never get an Apple designed for consumer space to price as
> cheaply as a wintel or amd box geared to that same market without going
> way up the food chain, and then only in tier 1 boxes.
>
> But if you are going to compare a G5 to anything lower than the
> Professional workstations, the nearest would be the EVO D530 series.
>
> Configured similarly to the Pavilion you show, the D530 would cost
> $1330 at HP's website. This is with the 2.4Ghz/P4 because the 530
> doesn't come with AMD chip, and the video is only a 64mb because they
> don't offer as a configuration, a 128Mb video card.
>
> So you would still save money on the HP, but not as much. In the
> professional workstation, the Apple would be cheaper.
Seems Apple does not have the variety of machines, but whenever you config a
Dell to be similar to a Mac the Mac is cheaper. I am sure there have to be
some congfigs where this is not the case, but the norm is for Apple to be
cheaper than Dell.
Of course, with the computer industry, this can flip flop on a dime. That
is why I do not include it on my site.
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Yes, Windows has always been troublesome, it always will be. There are
reasons for this. (1) It's not very good and M$ doesn't seem real
interested in really making it good. (2) It requires a lot more computer
saavy to get Windows configured properly than most people possess, and
(3) It has to run on a myriad of disparate boxen built out of
god-only-knows-what-all from who knows where. In my opinion, in this
arena, M$ has been fairly successful. I'm not saying that all home-mades
work flawlessly with Windows, but I am saying that of the dozen or so
that I've built over the years, I've never had one not run with Windows
as advertised. Ok?
> Did a search for "Mac OS X nightmare". Few nightmare stories, and the ones
> I did find were about 10.0 or 10.1. Seems that not many people have horror
> stories about 10.2. Of course, there are always bugs in any big release,
> but nothing like the stories that people write about Windows.
Agreed. OSX is a better OS than Windows. BUT, to be fair, OSX has only
to run on hardware built specifically for it, made by the same company
which makes the OS and vice versa. It's an easier job to marry the two
when one has full control over both.
--
George Graves
f...@bar.com
<lloydp...@nospammac.com> wrote:
>Your post brings out the obvious problem. The entire Pavilion and
>Presario line is geared towards the home consumer market, not business.
>Apple's G5 certainly isn't geared to that market in any way. This
>makes for comparisons that are idiotic.
You're funny, Lloyd. What, are the colors different, and so that
means pros can't use it? Funny guy!