|Mac versus PC|
Market share/tradition versus transition
| 4:54 pm on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, the argument for PCs is that they have the "market share": more folks use them, more software is written for them, more manufacturers make PCs, only Apple makes MacOS, only Apple makes a Mac, and on, and on...
But IF, someday, the "world" someday decides that "MacOS" is better and should have "market share", certainly the transition to dominance cannot occur in one swell foop, overnight. This major reason for using PCs instead of Macs can't be changed quickly: it has to be gradual, que no?
So how does it happen, if someone doesn't start now?
Thus my question: do you think there is a STRUCTURAL, SUBSTANTIAL difference that would make a PC better than a Mac?
| 4:59 pm on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Are you talking the PC vs Mac hardware?
Or MacOS vs WinOS vs *nix vs ...
So many arguments get hung up because some people are talking hardware, others are talking software, others refer to a PC when they really mean a PC running WinOS.
| 10:44 pm on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
it happens like this:
Vista seems to be the best thing to happen to the Mac OS in a long time.
(this is just an article at Computerworld about a large Automotive Supply company switching over to Mac and why.
Look for the "skip ad" link in the upper right hand corner)
| 10:10 pm on Jul 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Interesting article - thanks for the link!
I guess I'm talking both hardware and software, I'm not sure - I'm not a Mac expert, as you might detect, but most likely to convert. But isn't software the most garish difference?
I'm not sure, really, how to phrase the question. It just seems that, arguments *against* Mac depend on "status quo" and I'm asking about change.
| 8:49 am on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
On the hardware side, the Intel based Macs really are PCs - so there isn't a substancial difference on that front in terms of reliability. Having said that, it's been pretty easy to get mine fixed by taking it straight to the Apple store (even if you didn't buy it there), which is a million times easier than dealing with Dell et al.
On the OS side - OSX is just better than Windows for me. I can run an operating system which is pretty much Unix, but which runs Photoshop (in a nutshell).
| 2:07 pm on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
But PC doesn't have to run windows...it runs anything.
| 2:24 pm on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think that it would make a difference if you could install OSX on a pc. As the new macs are essetially pc's. I can understand why apple don't want this to happen.
Mostly I use windows but I have played with OSX. I like the fact that it does eveything a home user wants out of the box. I have also looked at Linux but it is not such a friendly user experiance (although it is getting better all the time) I quite like ubantu and fedora.
| 7:39 am on Jul 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I use OS's much like a carpenter uses hammers... But since Apple went to the Intel platform I run both major Os's using VMware at the same time on the same physical computer 24 /7.
And so far (about 5 years), I have no complaints as now I can use my custom unix tools and windows apps that will never be rewritten without noticeable loss of performance.
It is nice to just buy the app I need without regard to its OS anymore. It more like OS's are relegated to nothing more than application enablers on a common hardware platform.