Microsoft has worst year ever, Apple has best year ever

[Humodour]

Microsoft has suffered the worst year in their existence, with the first ever year on year loss, which can only be partially blamed on the global recession (hint: netbooks): http://blogs.computerworld.com/microsofts_...rd_quarter_ever

 

Apple has experienced the best year in their existence, despite the global recession, with their most recent quarter even being the best ever: http://au.gear.ign.com/articles/975/975650p1.html

 

Winds of change and all.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I wonder how much of Apple's sales were their computers and how much was their iPods...

 

EDIT: Yep, Mac sales were down but the iPod and iPhone sales balanced that out.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[LadyCrimson]

I'm so sick of i-everything...

 

But that's an interesting and imo important distinction far as the "Apple vs. MS" goes.

[mkreku]

One of my friends bought a 24" Imac (with an added Radeon 4850) this Monday and it's driving me nuts. I tried to talk him out of it but he just wouldn't listen to me.

 

Anyhow, this is what he could have gotten (he paid over 19000 SEK):

 

This is what he got (same gear as in the Imac, except the case naturally, is worth 12300 SEK):

 

Of course, it looks like this:

 

 

Still, is it really worth almost $1000 more just for looks?! I don't think so, especially since it will perform worse too! Apparently he does.

Edited April 25, 2009 by mkreku

[Gorgon]

Yeah I have a friend who paid close to 25000 Dkk for a top of the line mac laptop, and it's not like he is made of money or anything.

 

I just can't fathom why people are willing to pay that much more for a few extra bells and whistles and a nice design scheme.

 

It's a computer, not a new kitchen or a car.

[Pidesco]

Is it hard to install MacOS on a regular PC?

[Humodour]

Is it hard to install MacOS on a regular PC?

 

Often, yes.

 

People forget there's a few other things going for Macs:

- Design consistency (and hence stability)

- Ruggedness

- Mac OSX

 

In the case of the Mac Mini, it's well worth it. I'll pass judgement on the rest if I ever buy them.

 

Mkreku: nah, Macs perform identically to generic PCs with the same hardware, except they're less likely to have stability issues.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Is it hard to install MacOS on a regular PC?

 

I don't think so... I'll ask a freind who has a "Hackentosh" though and see...

[mkreku]

Mkreku: nah, Macs perform identically to generic PCs with the same hardware, except they're less likely to have stability issues.

Of course they'll perform identically if they have the same hardware. My point, however, was that for the price he paid, he could have gotten an i7-powered top-of-the-line computer. What he actually got is even worse than what I am running right now, even though my computer is 2 years old! And they're definitely not less likely to have stability issues. Because of their extreme design (in the case of Imacs) they're actually more likely to have stability issues, especially from heat.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14901

[Humodour]

And they're definitely not less likely to have stability issues. Because of their extreme design (in the case of Imacs) they're actually more likely to have stability issues, especially from heat.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14901

 

Um, that link doesn't back up your claim at all (driver glitch for ATI cards). Did you provide the wrong link? And what 'extreme design' would that be?

 

It's fairly self-evident that a closed hardware system is far easier to control and QA than an open one, hence decreased likelihood of stability issues.

[Magister Lajciak]

One of my friends bought a 24" Imac (with an added Radeon 4850) this Monday and it's driving me nuts. I tried to talk him out of it but he just wouldn't listen to me.

 

Anyhow, this is what he could have gotten (he paid over 19000 SEK):

 

This is what he got (same gear as in the Imac, except the case naturally, is worth 12300 SEK):

 

Of course, it looks like this:

 

 

Still, is it really worth almost $1000 more just for looks?! I don't think so, especially since it will perform worse too! Apparently he does.

 

 

Yes, I too find it mystifying why people buy Apple computers. They look good, but the price premium over the same insides is just incredibly high.

[Magister Lajciak]

Yeah I have a friend who paid close to 25000 Dkk for a top of the line mac laptop, and it's not like he is made of money or anything.

 

I just can't fathom why people are willing to pay that much more for a few extra bells and whistles and a nice design scheme.

 

It's a computer, not a new kitchen or a car.

 

I would not buy a Mackintosh either, so I am with you here. That said, I guess the explanation for some people buying Macs is probably threefold:

 

1) They view computers as fashion statements rather than merely working/entertainment machines. Most computer users probably don't do this, but some might and there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so.

 

2) They don't know much about computers and think that futuristic-looking computers like Macs are automatically better than standard-looking ones.

 

3) Customer loyalty to Apple, hate for Microsoft and a bunch of associated ideological reasons.

 

Sometimes the three can operate in combination with one another and other times they work separately.

[Humodour]

Yeah I have a friend who paid close to 25000 Dkk for a top of the line mac laptop, and it's not like he is made of money or anything.

 

I just can't fathom why people are willing to pay that much more for a few extra bells and whistles and a nice design scheme.

 

It's a computer, not a new kitchen or a car.

 

I would not buy a Mackintosh either, so I am with you here. That said, I guess the explanation for some people buying Macs is probably threefold:

 

1) They view computers as fashion statements rather than merely working/entertainment machines. Most computer users probably don't do this, but some might and there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so.

 

2) They don't know much about computers and think that futuristic-looking computers like Macs are automatically better than standard-looking ones.

 

3) Customer loyalty to Apple, hate for Microsoft and a bunch of associated ideological reasons.

 

Sometimes the three can operate in combination with one another and other times they work separately.

 

More than likely it's none of the above for a large chunk of Apple users, though.

[LostStraw]

People forget there's a few other things going for Macs:

- Design consistency (and hence stability)

How does the macs design consistancy relate to stability?

 

- Ruggedness

Apple computers are known for being rugged? http://i.gizmodo.com/5204395/apple-private...s-crack-problem

[Gorgon]

When considering what makes most people think macs are better I think we are definitely in psychological and intangible territory. It's brand reputation, not actual performance. The same reason coca colas cost more than no name lemonade.

 

Apple very successfully appeals to the same segment who buys designer furniture. The cheaper laptops are designed to 'get em while they're young', and they can get away with it because the laptop market is confusing to begin with.

[Humodour]

People forget there's a few other things going for Macs:

- Design consistency (and hence stability)

How does the macs design consistancy relate to stability?

 

Easy. You could have read it above, but I'll repeat it for you: closed systems are orders of magnitude easier to QA than open ones.

 

- Ruggedness

Apple computers are known for being rugged? http://i.gizmodo.com/5204395/apple-private...s-crack-problem

 

Yes, rugged. Problems such as the above are extremely rare and that one only occurred because of the specific polymer (plastic) they were using. A failure of materials science, certainly, but that's why they switched to aluminium (the aim was light-weight design).

 

Gorgon: not really. You can keep ignoring any positive aspects to Macs but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

What I cannot fathom is how a thread about eye-opening business trends for two major tech companies ended up as a "Macs sux lol" thread. Has nobody else observed that Microsoft is following the same path IBM did in its downfall?

[Gorgon]

Macs don't suck, quite the opposite. They are just way too expensive for what you get.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What I cannot fathom is how a thread about eye-opening business trends for two major tech companies ended up as a "Macs sux lol" thread.

 

I hardly think this is an "eye-opening business trend" due to the fact that sales of computers were down for both companies. All the data seems to show, for me, is that Apple has a much stronger MP3 and Phone devision than Microsoft - although that makes me wonder, did they include X-Box 360 data in the Microsoft sales numbers? If not, why didn't they remove the non-computer items from Apple's.

[mkreku]

Um, that link doesn't back up your claim at all (driver glitch for ATI cards). Did you provide the wrong link? And what 'extreme design' would that be?

 

It's fairly self-evident that a closed hardware system is far easier to control and QA than an open one, hence decreased likelihood of stability issues.

The link provided points to a probable overheating problem for the Imac users who've chosen to go with the fastest GPU available for that setup: the ATI 4850. It's not a "driver glitch". Of course, since Apple has chosen not to do anything about it yet, we can only speculate. Still, they have problems.

 

The extreme design is having an entire computer built into the case of a screen. This means it will be much, much more difficult to get an appropriate amount of airflow inside the case, something which the ATI 4850 desperately needs. I'm not even sure the Imac has any fans! My friend who bought the Imac says his screen gets incredibly hot in the upper left corner. So hot you can actually burn your hand on the aluminium frame! He has the 4850.

[LostStraw]

Easy. You could have read it above, but I'll repeat it for you: closed systems are orders of magnitude easier to QA than open ones.

So laptops in general are more stable than desktops? Yes they're easier to QA but in my experience stability problems come from cheap components rather than because it's not a closed system.

 

Yes, rugged. Problems such as the above are extremely rare and that one only occurred because of the specific polymer (plastic) they were using. A failure of materials science, certainly, but that's why they switched to aluminium (the aim was light-weight design).

The problems with the white macbook were not extremely rare. I would love some evidence that macs are somehow rugged but all I've found is the opposite. http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/apple-not...y-macbooks.html

Edited April 26, 2009 by LostStraw

[LadyCrimson]

When considering what makes most people think macs are better I think we are definitely in psychological and intangible territory. It's brand reputation, not actual performance.

I think it has more to do with simplicity. Not everyone is a control-freak/tech-geek who cares about or would even use/utilize all the stuff that pc's supposedly are "better" for. (Edit: ie, they don't care about "performance" but functionality/ease of use in what they use a computer for, and that's it ) Now, I'm just generalizing here...I'm sure there's lots of Mac users who pant "ooo pretty," as well as those who want more Mac software support and like to tinker, but well .. then they'll either buy a PC as a 2nd rig or switch to the type of computing that works better for them.

 

Also, for a while at least, Mac did very well at marketing in schools. Thus parents who could only afford one computer would buy a Mac to match what their kids used, and perhaps now it's habit. It's what they're used to, and perhaps they have no reason to change. People like what they're used to.

 

Let's face it - both Mac and PC suck in their own special ways, just like everything else.

 

Macs ... are just way too expensive for what you get.

That really depends on how you use computers. My mother has owned two Macs in 15-20 years. I don't think that's very expensive, even if it might've been a bit cheaper if she'd bought PC/Windows.

Obviously, if you're into games or anything else that requires/makes you think you need frequent rebuilding of a rig to keep up with the times, Mac's can be a disadvantage (so I hear, I don't own one). But perhaps a lot of mac users aren't that type of computer user and thus the initial cost doesn't bother them much.

 

What I cannot fathom is how a thread about eye-opening business trends for two major tech companies ended up as a "Macs sux lol" thread.

Because this is a forum populated by (somewhat) hardcore gaming fanatics who largely use PC's. I find on many such forums, any mention of "Mac" tends to turn into "PC vs. Mac" and then "Mac sucks." Heh

Edited April 26, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, you all know where I stand in this. Apple makes overpriced rubbish for fashion-aware people with no common sense whatsoever. Not to mention that mac-users are all a bunch of smug twits. And the reason everyone on tv is using a mac laptop is because apple sends them crates of them for free, to try and obfuscate the fact that their real users are obnoxious idiots.

 

Oddly enough, my best friend who is very technicly savvy and not smug in the least started using macs a few years ago when he got one free from his job. But he's running winXP and linux on top of macOS, so I only tease him about it every other day instead of constantly.

 

 

..this message was sponsored by

hardware for real men

[Gorgon]

Lols

[I want teh kotor 3]

Craps Macs suck. I have their failPhone, and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing. My fried spent $2k on a shiny new mac and dual-booted w/ Windows(?????????); he got a C2D. I paid $2k, and got a i7, etc, and a good couple thousand more 3dMark points. I'm all for buying "nice" things, but only when you're already buying that's more about looks than preformace, like watches or cars. Computers don't qualify.

Edited April 27, 2009 by I want teh kotor 3

[Diamond]

When considering what makes most people think macs are better I think we are definitely in psychological and intangible territory. It's brand reputation, not actual performance.

I think it has more to do with simplicity. Not everyone is a control-freak/tech-geek who cares about or would even use/utilize all the stuff that pc's supposedly are "better" for. (Edit: ie, they don't care about "performance" but functionality/ease of use in what they use a computer for, and that's it ) Now, I'm just generalizing here...I'm sure there's lots of Mac users who pant "ooo pretty," as well as those who want more Mac software support and like to tinker, but well .. then they'll either buy a PC as a 2nd rig or switch to the type of computing that works better for them.

 

I think this is spot on. Most computer users are not gamers, they just don't care about raw performance. They just want to get their Excel spreadsheets and Word docs done, upload photos to Facebook, surf the Web, check their email, sync music to their iPod. They just want a system that is responsive and does not get in the way. For them, performance is not how fast their video card renders triangles, but how quickly they can get things done on their computer.

 

In fact, ever since I stopped gaming, I move closer and closer to this category of users and I see where they are coming from. If I tinker with systems all day long at work, sometimes it can get very tiring, so I begin to just want everything to work out of the box and not put a tiny bit of thought into making it work.

 

 

As an side thought, the fact that most people need so little from their computers actually explains the emergence of netbook market.