Sorry your browser is not supported!

why thank you

That is such a funny comment. Actually made me say "WTF" out loud (and in full).

To be honest, I'm not against Apple at all really though I think their hardware is miles better than the operating system. I think that in 10 years times, people will just be running Windows or Linux on their Macs (which are essentially really PCs now) and Mac OSX will just sink. My reasons? All my friends with Macs (a grand total of 5) are either dual booting with this bootcamp thing or have dropped Mac OSX altogether. I don't think it's the fact that they prefer to use Windows over OSX but more the fact that the decent software is available for Windows. I think you even have to run Photoshop in Rosetta now!

I've always liked Apple's hardware, even if it has been a little overpriced to even make me consider it as a potential purchase - even the Creative Zens used to wipe the floor with the ipods when it comes to value for money, not sure if that's still the case mind.

All apple products just seem to have those finishing touches that other companies just can't produce and I think that's what you're paying 25% more for.

On to the Apple TV though... I was hugely disappointed when I learnt that it couldn't actually play or record TV! I was thinking what the advantages of it over a Media Center or even MythTV are! I can't think of any. I build my Media Center in a shuttle PC for under £150 - the Apple TV is £199 and does much much less. I really can't see why people buy them, other than they look good in a modern house. Even then, it still has a striking resemblance to a lunch box.

@Nemisis: Well written post - but I personally disagree with most of it... my reasons?

I would guess that, in that case, they probably got OSX for the wrong reasons. Due to M$ dominating the gaming market for PC's with DirectX, OSX in unable to compete as a gaming platform. Thats not to say its incapable. I've personally always prefered OpenGL. Why? I'm not sure. I've never developed in DirectX so I cant fairly say that OpenGL is any better in that dept. Performance - they've always seemed quite equal. Features - Inevitably, DirectX is going to have more dimply due to the weight behind it. I think it comes down to the fact that its open and its cross platform.
OSX is a FANTASTIC platform for web development, video editing and DTP (Photoshop, InDesign, Quark, etc). I'd chose it over windows any day. But thats my opinion (and the opinion of pretty much every professional web developer I know - any thats more than 5 hehe).


They're not looking hard enough There is definately MORE software available for Windows, but most of it is written by "amatuer" programmers and it generally a pile of crap. The software for OSX that I've found tends to be a more "rounded" product.
The main difference is there is more FREE software for Windows compared to OSX and thats down the type of people that use OSX. OSX tends to be used by professionals - and they can afford to BUY stuff. Joe Bloggs on a PC wont pay for software. He'll either look for a free alternative or will find the nearest Torrent file.


Correct for CS2. But thats not Apple's fault. Apple made the bold leap of jumping from a PPC chip to Intel. This means all the software which was compiled for PPC needed recompiling for i386. Most vendors did so and released Universal Binaries for their software. Adobe didn't. Instead, Apple simply told everyone to wait for CS3 which will only run on Intel (AFAIK) - and they also hiked the price up for it too. Just because Adobe made a VEY cut-throat business descision about their popular software shouldn't reflect badly on Apple.
Imagine the choas that would incurr if Microsoft suddenly compiled their OS to only run on PPC and everything else had to get run on top of an emulator? The world would explode! Apple handled it VERY well imho - most people probably haven't even heard of Rosetta. Thats how transparently the emulation was done.


I had this conversation with the IT manager a few weeks ago.

Take the mid-range Apple iMac. It has these specs:
* 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x512MB
* ATI Radeon X1600 with 128MB VRAM
* 250GB Serial ATA drive
* Keyboard (English) & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (English)
* 20-inch TFT display
* 8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±RW, CD-RW)
* AirPort Extreme
* Bluetooth 2.0

I'm not saying its impossible... but try to find a competing "PC" with similar specs for £1K (about $2K) bearing in mind it comes with a pretty high quality 20" widescreen LCD built in AND the Operating System which is comparable to Vista (not sure which release really, but it must be close to the Premium edition when you compare features).

Thats actually a LOT of PC for your money. PLUS you can (stably and legally) run OSX on it AND windows. An equivalent Dell PC could only stably and legally run Windows.


Apart from the +25% bit - thats VERY true. When you compare the product as a whole, I think Apple one's are much nicer.

Knowing these people, I'm going to suggest that it was down to loyalty. They're familiar with the operating system and what to expect from it. OSX has served them well, until they actually want to do something useful - and everyone knows that the software market in particular is inclined towards Windows.




I built mine for £600 about 6 months and it's better than that (minus the monitor - a 19" TFT) and that's what I mean by paying about 25% extra. I couldn't believe it when my friend told me he spent £1.5k on an Apple laptop: core duo, 1gb ram, pretty standard 128mb ATI graphics. The PC equiv. from Dell would be easily under a grand...
If I had the money, would I go with the Apple laptop? Sure!
The end product is topped with funky features like auto-adjusting backlight, motion sensors and magnetic USB ports but it's just not worth the money you'd pay for it.

I do think your point about running OSX and Windows is valid though - if you actually would want to use both. In my opinion, OSX is a pile of crap that I'd never want infecting my machine. It's nothing like a Linux and Windows combo and I'd never pay for the privilege of having it on my system.



True, it's not Apple's fault. But if you use Photoshop regularly, and that is the purpose your Mac exists, would you want to continue using OSX when it would run faster and more efficient on Windows? You could easily just install XP on another partition, have Photoshop on that instead and leave OSX behind.

Quite frankly, I don't think there's anything left of OSX that's better than Windows or Linux. If you have to emulate applications or buy the new version just to run it on your new Mac, it's hardly worth it. AFAIK, you can't install an older PPC version on your Intel Mac whereas you could easily install XP alongside Vista on a PC.


I was being kind of sarcastic there. It shows the range of opinions though, and in the end people will use the hardware and software which suits them best.

@Nemisis: you've slightly missed the point about Photoshop. OSX is making the best of a bad situation - its trying to run a program it wasn't compiled to run.

It'd be like getting the PPC compiled version of Open Office to run on an Intel Chip in Linux. The problem is that "you've" bought an Intel machine and you want to run software only release for PPC processors. Hence it being Adobe's fault for not supporting the newer hardware.

The reason Windows never has this issue is that they have always developed and compiled for Intel/AMD (aka IBM compatibles).

You say:

Just like you cant install Vista 64bit on a Pentium 3... The only reason the older versions of Windows work on new CPU's is that the CPU's are backwards compatible or the OS supports them via a driver. Eg, in the new 64bit CPU's they probably share some similar functionality (on a low level) to the the old CPU's.


Again - slightly missed the point.
1) Building a PC is always going to be cheaper - although spec for spec, I'm surprised you got that low... Including Windows XP Pro? Including Keyboard, mouse, soundcard, gfx, hard disk, DVDRW, bluetooth, etc?
2) A "nice" 20 inch widescreen LCD is probably going to set you back at least £200 - probably closer to £300 for a nice one. That takes you substantially closer to the £1K mark.


Correct - bigger market. Although, just because there is more software doesn't necesarily mean that software will be BETTER. OSX, in my experience in the past 12 months, has considerably less software available for it - however I've yet to encounter a situation where I've though "Oh bugger... you cant do that on a Mac!" (except for gaming).

@Nicholas: That isnt suprising. I built a machine to that spec at about $1100.

Please list the spec...

again...
1) You built it - it WILL be cheaper than buying it. Most companies dont BUILD. They BUY. That way if it breaks you dont have to faff about fixing it yourself. You give it back to dabs/misco/ebuyer, etc.
2) Did it including a nice 20" widescreen LCD or a cheap 17"? There is a BIG difference!

Specs:

Ultra Black case w/ 400 wt psu: $50 at fry's.
Mobo and CPU deal for fry's a Asus board and an E6400: $300
1 GB DDR2: $80
ATI x1900 GT 256mb: $110
HDD 250gb: $100
Keyboard Mouse Combo: $60
Windows XP: Free with Fry's Deal
20" Widescreen Viewsonic: $200 (AMAZING deal at costco's)
DVD Burner: $30 (+ $30 cause I got 2)
Wireless Card G: $30
Bluetooth: Dont have it, have external sata though for about $80.

It comes in around $1070 or so.

The monitor has warranty, the actual parts have a 1/2 year fry's warranty as well.

Thats actually a damn good deal as it is, as you said, close as dammit to the same spec.

I have to say, you got some BARGAIN deal's there! £100 for a 20" LCD... Free WinXP... £60 for a ATI x1900 GT 256Mb....

Point still stands that the same spec from someone like HP/Dell, etc aint gonna be a huge amount cheaper - if it is at all.

Kudos to you and your bargain hunting

Trust me, It took me 2 months to get some of those parts. I almost spent $350 on the same monitor but I went to Costco for some groceries, and I found it in the electronic section! Then the Free XP was because of the vista release, they were practically giving away some of it. The ATI card was a miracle! It was $40 off for being opened! It isnt the best pc I own, but for its price I am extremely pleased with its rendering uses.

But yah, HP would have made me spend $2000 or $2500 for a machine this level.

The point is: if Adobe's software won't perform as well on OSX as it will on Windows, surely that's going to have an impact on the end-users decision on whether or not they want to purchase the machine / OS?


From Dell.com:

Dell Dimension E520

From $1,343
$1,193
As low as $36/month2

In my opinion, $1k more is far too much for me to consider Apple, regardless of how shiny they get the case.

There were PPC versions of Windows available as well.

The whole Mac/Photoshop issue will be closed as soon as CS3 comes out (which is looking pretty sexy). The beta on a mac pisses all over the windows version.

U swore! Cover your ears children.LOL
Well it does look good but thats just blocks not made in CS3