Jump to content

Apple Store Fact

BBascule

By BBascule
in Providence

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I'm going to ask a stupid question, but I need a serious answer. Do Apple & Mac systems work and operate much better than Windows/PC systems?

before someone comes out and says that windows is evil and apples rule, i'll answer.

in short, no. windows/PC systems are more susceptible to viruses and spyware because people who make viruses and spyware want to get the most people possible and with something like 90% market share, that's windows. if you know what websites to avoid and what links not to click and what software not to install (it's pretty easy as i've never been infected), windows will run great. OSX is based on unix, which is generally more stable. that's the main difference. windows xp professional is pretty stable though. i generally stay away from the home edition of it.

the whole pc vs mac thing is over. apple is using the same hardware that goes into a regular pc. apple computers are pc's. a mac used to be different hardware. that's no longer the case since apple switched to intel. they are the same computers that the "pc" manufacturers are using, don't let any apple fan tell you otherwise. the difference is in the looks of what is basically a case to hold it all together. the actual hardware is the same stuff.

the whole microsoft is evil thing that apple fans like to state holds true with apple as well. itunes and the ipod are the prime example of that. apple is the microsoft of portable digital music. again, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Recchia Town

Recchia

Posted
Posted

One thing I hate about Mac's is the lack of the right-click button on the mouse. It frustrates the hell out of me when I want to copy and paste something or delete something nice and quick. Is there some other way to do this on a Mac that I just don't know about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeR Hamlet

MikeR

Posted
Posted

One thing I hate about Mac's is the lack of the right-click button on the mouse. It frustrates the hell out of me when I want to copy and paste something or delete something nice and quick. Is there some other way to do this on a Mac that I just don't know about?

You can enable right-clicking on a Mac thru system prefs. Or, hold the command key while clicking - it simulates a right-click.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeR Hamlet

MikeR

Posted
Posted

I'm going to ask a stupid question, but I need a serious answer. Do Apple & Mac systems work and operate much better than Windows/PC systems?

In gereral, yes. Apple controls the whole infrastructure on a Mac - the hardware AND the software that comes bundled with it (iLife). Everything is designed to work together. Apple operating system, OSX, is uses Unix - a stable and secure operating environment. Apple is gaining market share (slowly). They have 14% of the laptop market (a big jump from just a year ago) and somewhere in the area of 6-8% of the TOTAL desktop market. I say TOTAL because that includes business and academic installations as well as home installations. SOme estimates peg the home installation base for Apple to run anywhere from 10-12%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liamlunchtray Burg

Liamlunchtray

Posted
Posted

One thing I hate about Mac's is the lack of the right-click button on the mouse. It frustrates the hell out of me when I want to copy and paste something or delete something nice and quick. Is there some other way to do this on a Mac that I just don't know about?

Every Mac OS since OS9 has supported 2 button mice - you just need to plug it in (any regular old windows 2 button mouse will do if you dont have an Apple one) and turn it on in the ctrl panel. I will certainly agree that a single button mouse is a royal pain. I have no idea why they insisted on it for so lone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

Every Mac OS since OS9 has supported 2 button mice - you just need to plug it in (any regular old windows 2 button mouse will do if you dont have an Apple one) and turn it on in the ctrl panel. I will certainly agree that a single button mouse is a royal pain. I have no idea why they insisted on it for so lone.

or why they still only put one button on their laptops? they're just trying to please the die-hards, no other reason but that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liamlunchtray Burg

Liamlunchtray

Posted
Posted

the whole microsoft is evil thing that apple fans like to state holds true with apple as well. itunes and the ipod are the prime example of that. apple is the microsoft of portable digital music. again, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I think the difference here though is that Apple is dominant in this market because they have a superior product. When the iPod was introduced there were already a zillion hard drive based MP3 players in the market, and most of them were cheaper and had more features. What seperated Apple's product was that it had a simple user friendly design that was intuitive and simple. This is pretty much the advantage of Macs over PC's. You can certainly do all the same stuff on a PC that you can on a mac, but doing it on a PC is going to be a royal pain in the @ss and you will spend as much time tinkering trying to get it to work as you will actually doing what needs to be done. Try comparing iMovie to the freebie windows video editing apps. The mac version just works period. I have made my living for the past 8 years supporting PC based stuff and I am always happy to go home to my Macs.

Also, now that they have switched to Intel the pricing is totally on par with Windows boxes. What normally throws people is that typically the macs have more features than the comparable PC (IE: Firewire ports, all current mac CPU's are dual core, etc etc...) but if you compare apples to apples (no pun intended) they will be within a $100-200 of a similar HP/Sony/Dell etc...

Now if I could just afford a shiny new 24" iMac. *Drool.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I think the difference here though is that Apple is dominant in this market because they have a superior product. When the iPod was introduced there were already a zillion hard drive based MP3 players in the market, and most of them were cheaper and had more features. What seperated Apple's product was that it had a simple user friendly design that was intuitive and simple. This is pretty much the advantage of Macs over PC's. You can certainly do all the same stuff on a PC that you can on a mac, but doing it on a PC is going to be a royal pain in the @ss and you will spend as much time tinkering trying to get it to work as you will actually doing what needs to be done. Try comparing iMovie to the freebie windows video editing apps. The mac version just works period. I have made my living for the past 8 years supporting PC based stuff and I am always happy to go home to my Macs.

Also, now that they have switched to Intel the pricing is totally on par with Windows boxes. What normally throws people is that typically the macs have more features than the comparable PC (IE: Firewire ports, all current mac CPU's are dual core, etc etc...) but if you compare apples to apples (no pun intended) they will be within a $100-200 of a similar HP/Sony/Dell etc...

Now if I could just afford a shiny new 24" iMac. *Drool.*

you missed my point on the digital music thing. DRM is my point. you cannot buy a song from itunes and play it on a non-ipod. you cannot buy a song from another digital music retailer and play it on an ipod (except from the only retailer that doesn't use DRM, emusic.com).

i have never had problems doing things on a PC that i can do on an apple. it's not a pain in the @ss like you say. it's not difficult, and there's a whole lot more pieces of software you can use on it. i won't even go into gaming...

for the record, i don't dislike apple aside from their business practices. any DRM is bad DRM.

i also believe i priced out a macbook pro versus an HP business line laptop with a centrino duo. the HP was about $500 less when all was said and done (adjusting specs so they matched each other). with apple having full control over the hardware, while that makes things "work", it also allows them to charge more for it than if they had any competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

With the opening of the Apple Store in about a week...

The Microsoft vs. Apple wars cometh! :shades:

while i'm obviously not an apple fanboy, i'm also not a microsoft fanboy. i just tell it like it is. apple is no better than microsoft as a company. i'm really surprised no one has tried to sue apple under anti-trust laws, but i won't be surprised if it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
Posted

you missed my point on the digital music thing. DRM is my point. you cannot buy a song from itunes and play it on a non-ipod. you cannot buy a song from another digital music retailer and play it on an ipod (except from the only retailer that doesn't use DRM, emusic.com).

Zune will be on it's own propietary DRM system as well. And Microsoft has locked Apple users out of Media Player 10 so we can't access the media that has DRM reliant on Windows Media Player 10. Apple's DRM is available to PC users, not just Mac users.

Though I'm sure Apple enjoys the all-in-one system DRM creates, it's the labels that are forcing DRM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brick Burg

brick

Posted
Posted

I think the difference here though is that Apple is dominant in this market because they have a superior product. When the iPod was introduced there were already a zillion hard drive based MP3 players in the market, and most of them were cheaper and had more features.

This should read

"there were already two HDD MP3 players on the market." Compaq and iRiver, though I guess they each had a couple of models.

It was pertty much a virgin market still when Apple hit it. The zillion MP3 players were all flash based at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

Though I'm sure Apple enjoys the all-in-one system DRM creates, it's the labels that are forcing DRM.

and apple is choosing to not allow any non-apple drm to play on their ipods. that's the problem. they also won't allow other mp3 player manufacturers to play AAC files (which is all you can buy from itunes.

microsoft's zune will play any wma drm'd file, which play on a variety of other mp3 players as well and are available from multiple online retailers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JJK5 Hamlet

JJK5

Posted
Posted

while i'm obviously not an apple fanboy, i'm also not a microsoft fanboy. i just tell it like it is. apple is no better than microsoft as a company. i'm really surprised no one has tried to sue apple under anti-trust laws, but i won't be surprised if it happens.

I think anti-trust suits are ridiculous no matter who they're against. Deliberately having to leave obvious features out of an OS because some small 3rd party was selling it first is ridiculous. It's like telling Ford not to include CD players in their car because Alpine has been selling aftermarket ones first. If your product is better than what comes bundled, people will still buy it as it fills a need. But purposely forcing a company to cripple their OS just in the name of a "fair" chance for 3rd party vendors is stupid.

and apple is choosing to not allow any non-apple drm to play on their ipods. that's the problem. they also won't allow other mp3 player manufacturers to play AAC files (which is all you can buy from itunes.

microsoft's zune will play any wma drm'd file, which play on a variety of other mp3 players as well and are available from multiple online retailers.

I have no basis, but perhaps Apple has tried to license the WMA component and MS hasn't agreed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I think anti-trust suits are ridiculous no matter who they're against. Deliberately having to leave obvious features out of an OS because some small 3rd party was selling it first is ridiculous. It's like telling Ford not to include CD players in their car because Alpine has been selling aftermarket ones first. If your product is better than what comes bundled, people will still buy it as it fills a need. But purposely forcing a company to cripple their OS just in the name of a "fair" chance for 3rd party vendors is stupid.

I have no basis, but perhaps Apple has tried to license the WMA component and MS hasn't agreed?

the OS anti-trust suit is ridiculous, but if it keeps windows and IE as separate programs, that's a good thing. i was thinking more along the lines of apple not allowing other vendors' mp3 players to play songs purchased from itunes... which leads me to my next comment, which is a direct play off yours...

perhaps creative, iriver, and all the other mp3 player manufacturers have tried to license apple's drm and apple did not agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
Posted

I see iTunes as an extension, a direct part of my iPod. Being able to play media on my Mac or PC and being able to burn discs are add-ons to a program that was designed to run and manage my iPod. I have no problem with the iPod/iTunes system being fully integrated and closed. Apple allows me to load non-DRM tracks, be those ripped from a CD, 'shared' from Napster back in the day, or stipped of DRM from another vendor, they don't care. If I wanted to use (new) Napster or Rhapsody, then the iPod is not the player for that, and the iPod is not designed for rented music. I prefer that Apple makes sure that iTunes works with the iPod and not be spinning their wheels trying to make it support every other MP3 player on the market. Other MP3 makers are free to design their own iTunes-like system, and make the deals that Apple has made with the labels and studios and networks to provide content for those. I also don't see why Apple has to open the iPod to other music services. They don't want to have to keep up with all those services and get support calls when those systems make a change that breaks the iPod compatability. If people don't want to be part of the iPod/iTunes system, they are free to take their money elsewhere.

Napster by the way, does not support Macs at all, you need a PC running XP/2000 to use the service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I see iTunes as an extension, a direct part of my iPod. Being able to play media on my Mac or PC and being able to burn discs are add-ons to a program that was designed to run and manage my iPod. I have no problem with the iPod/iTunes system being fully integrated and closed. Apple allows me to load non-DRM tracks, be those ripped from a CD, 'shared' from Napster back in the day, or stipped of DRM from another vendor, they don't care. If I wanted to use (new) Napster or Rhapsody, then the iPod is not the player for that, and the iPod is not designed for rented music. I prefer that Apple makes sure that iTunes works with the iPod and not be spinning their wheels trying to make it support every other MP3 player on the market. Other MP3 makers are free to design their own iTunes-like system, and make the deals that Apple has made with the labels and studios and networks to provide content for those. I also don't see why Apple has to open the iPod to other music services. They don't want to have to keep up with all those services and get support calls when those systems make a change that breaks the iPod compatability. If people don't want to be part of the iPod/iTunes system, they are free to take their money elsewhere.

Napster by the way, does not support Macs at all, you need a PC running XP/2000 to use the service.

itunes as a program is a great program for all my music needs. itunes music store (and any other music store that uses DRM), however, is not great by any means. it's not in the recording industry's hands as to whether or not DRM is used. if apple (and any other digital music retailer) said "we'll sell your music DRM free", the recording industry would be shooting itself in the foot to say "no". but apple gave in. apple can always turn around and say "we don't like DRM, we're removing it" and the music industry would basically have no say because they'd lose one of their biggest sources of income. but apple doesn't care. they have people locked in. sounds all too familiar... and a bit worse if you really think about it... (i'm comparing to MS's operating system lock in crap).

i'm gonna dig up a link... but for anyone who thinks ipods and itunes music store is not bad... you should read it. it might take some time for me to find it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.