I Just dont understand. I am forced every day to work on windows XP since its mandatory in our office.
I feel sorry for all you poor suckers who use it willingly.
Im not a steve jobs lover and nore am I Linux geek. I just want something that works.
I will out of my pocket pay for my work computer if they let me use a Mac at work..
This would be a good poll. Woul you pay for your own office computer if it were a Mac.
Dont give me no cheesy remarks about ohh mac gay and so on. Cause every one I know who tried mac for over 2 weeks says just like me.
Windows is time wasting and idiotic. Just like driving a petrol guzzling Hummer on flat tyres in the middle of a 3 hour long Cue to work and home again. While any other system compared is teleportation
Yeah! Windows is like a huge slow and tractor that keeps breaking donw and a mac is like a space rocket! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... BEEP BEEP... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
1. I can build a comperable windows based PC for a fraction of the cost of a Mac.
2. I want to be able to decide what hardware goes into my computer.
3. I want to be able to update the hardware rather than buying a whole new computer, and on most Mac models this is not possible (or SEVERELY restricted).
4. I want to be able to run the majority of software out there without having to intall another OS to do so (Boot Camp for XP).
5. I don't care about how a computer looks, and I'm not willing to pay more as a result.
What I'm looking for is function over form. Macs are good for some people, but the restrictive nature of the platform runs contrary to my needs. Heck, in my lab there are no Mac options for half the software that we use (some students ask). From our sequencer, to the RT-PCR the software is Windows only. This doesn't even get into the gaming aspect of things. Macs still suck at gaming, period. For less money than any Mac currently in production, I could build a Windows-based rig that would run circles around it's Mac counterpart.
I sounds like you're being honest, guy, but that doesn't really matter on Engadget forums anymore. As a PC user (maybe former now that I have a Macbook Pro) I'm disturbed at the behavior of a lot of other PC users. They're hyper-defensive about Microsoft. They're almost as bad, if not worse than a lot of the Apple fanboys.
So I suggest you follow the underwritten laws about comments if you desire to keep a high rank on Engadget.
The Official Guide to Avoiding Low Rankings on Engadget
1) Don't talk about Apple in any way positive, even if the praise is warranted and based on statistics, popular opinion, and actual sales.
2) Don't mention the iPhone in any Engadget post about a touchscreen phone, because as everyone knows, it is absolutely positively impossible that another company could be making a touchscreen phone because of Apple.
3) Don't suggest that Apple has innovated anything, because someone can always find an obscure company in Romania that did it first.
4) Don't suggest that a person might be a Microsoft Fanboy, because this is impossible, even if the aforementioned person has an Xbox, Zune, PC with Vista and every version of Windows minted in gold and platinum and a Bill Gates poster above the bed.
well actually, given Apple's ads, i say mac users are hyper offensive. But they still compare mac to PCs in the commercials, and PCs commercials don't need to do that.
Dude, I really doubt that Mac users have input on what commercials that Apple decides to put on the air. So your anger against Mac people seems to be misplaced.
that was to respond the user above me. Of course you seem to nice guy lol. but it wasn't anger anyways, just an observation. It's not like i don't use any Apple products. just not their computers.
The attitude thing cuts both ways I'm affraid. Many of the Apple proponents here seem to think that Steve Jobs walks on water and, as in the case of Dave, that no one could possibly not want to use a Mac once they've experience the glory that is Apple. Well I have used a Mac (in school school from 2001-2003) and I prefer a PC; not Windows or Microsoft, but a PC. Why did Dave even post in this thread, heck why did you make the first post about your new MacBook when the article had nothing to do with Apple.
Well, I don't see what my first comment didn't have to do with Microsoft. They're extending XP and I expressed my frustration with Vista and the downgrade back to XP and decided to give something else a try. That's all I was saying.
People need to admit that they are alternatives. Some PC people act like everyone wants to build their own computer and save a bunch of money, even if they're dissatisfied with Microsoft. These people believe that saving a buck should be your only consideration when buying a computer. Some of us actually believe that you get what you pay for.
If I have to pay more for a better experience with Apple, then I'm willing to do that, and what's more, I feel it's time for a change. I've been using XP since I was in Junior High. I'm bored with it.
3. You do know that Microsoft Windows will de-activate itself if you change too much of that hardware, right? Causing a re-activation headache. (It's headache if you have to do it at all...)
4. Can't really blame Apple for this... in fact, there's really only one company you can blame.
5. Agree
"to the RT-PCR the software is Windows only. This doesn't even get into the gaming aspect of things." -- Again, not really Apple's fault except for the point about putting in whatever hardware you want.
As a savvy consumer, you should be asking those people that make your programs if they run on more than one OS. If not, ask why. You should promote competition and avoid lock-in (from Mac and Windows.) It's for your benefit to use programs that you can move to another system if you see fit. Buying a windows only application is like buying a TV that only works with your home theater. It may "just work" but when your receiver is replaced, you'll need to find one that works with your TV and hope the manufacturer of your TV didn't decide to change the plugs. Of course, that analogy doesn't work in today's world because the home AV market is standardized for the most part and anyone cam make a stereo or a TV that work with another brand. Not being able to replace your OS with one that will run all your crap isn't the fault of the competition. There's only one company keeping that from happening by abusing patent and "IP" laws.
@Andir Come on, the reactivation takes all of 2 seconds. Click the little icon, it connect's to MS's server, and boom you're done. I've never had to call due to a hardware change-- only (on rare occasion) on initial installation. Then you just read the numbers off to the machine, and it reads a set back to you. 5-10 minutes at the most, and it's damn rare at that. The fact that you *can* upgrade to Tri-SLI, add a Bluray drive, or add in a RAID card definitely outweighs the cons of having to re-activate should your system think it changed too much.
3. I've made major system modifications and never had to contact Microsoft, but this may be because I'm using an institutionally licenced copy of XP (and now Vista). I don't know if the hardware locks are disabled in this configuration.
4. I view it as market pressure. Is it worth the time and money to adapt a program for a Mac OS, when it represents only a fraction of the PC market? It all comes down to money.
On the specific topic of there being no Mac software, it's a bit more complicated than that. I'm in a very specalized field (Molecular Biology) and all the equipment is low volume, and in fact is normally sold with the computer as part of the package (Windows or rarely Linux). Part of the reason for this is that many of the devices need specalized boards, or hardware elements that are simply not supported by Apple. On the business side of things, there is the simple fact that the VAST majority of University computers are Windows based, and the cost to provide a Mac-based alternative is not financially viable. Keep in mind that these are high cost/low volume products here. We might spend $750,000+ on a DNA sequencer and gripe about it all the time, but the company is going to sell
We might spend $750,000+ on a DNA sequencer and gripe about it all the time, but the company is going to sell less than 1000 of these units in total...worldwide. The company would have to provide hardware and software support for two versions of the product, it simply doesn't make sense. The numbers (and demand) for a Mac variant simply isn't there.
Just so I'm clear here... I'm not a Mac proponent in any way. I'd much rather see people move to Linux, but my point was that as a consumer (maybe not of million dollar software...) we are all responsible for the lock-in to the Windows platform. If the world had adopted an open (not open source necessarily, but open spec) and standard platform that anyone could build their OS off of, you'd see much better desktop environments with full compatibility and better competition for your money. As it is right now, the reason Microsoft has a hold on you is that they manipulated OEMs into signing exclusivity deals, patent abuse, and licensing restrictions when the computer industry was booming. Hell, I even remember back in 96 when I was in college reading a document from the school stating that they were removing all Macromedia products from the PCs as part of an agreement with Microsoft in order to provide the school with cheap Visual Studio licenses. Shrewd (immoral?) business. Microsoft's bottom line. Selling virtual bits and bytes for premium prices. Planned obsolescence. et al.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I Just dont understand. I am forced every day to work on windows XP since its mandatory in our office.
I feel sorry for all you poor suckers who use it willingly.
Im not a steve jobs lover and nore am I Linux geek. I just want something that works.
I will out of my pocket pay for my work computer if they let me use a Mac at work..
This would be a good poll. Woul you pay for your own office computer if it were a Mac.
Dont give me no cheesy remarks about ohh mac gay and so on. Cause every one I know who tried mac for over 2 weeks says just like me.
Windows is time wasting and idiotic. Just like driving a petrol guzzling Hummer on flat tyres in the middle of a 3 hour long Cue to work and home again. While any other system compared is teleportation
There's 6 billion people, and are one of you. Why, you are not even a majority.
>rolls eyes<
Yeah, that's what it's like.
i've used a mac before... its so damn computer illiterate friendly i hated it.
*there are one of you... proofreading holds great power.
Yeah! Windows is like a huge slow and tractor that keeps breaking donw and a mac is like a space rocket! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... BEEP BEEP... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
i'm not sure if low ranking was called for here, its a fair question.
I would pay for SOME of my work computer if it was a mac, but just because i am lazy and ignorant and i dont like change.
XPs ok, i have no qualms with it particularly, MS must have been doing something right if it ran for the majority of a decade.
Reasons why I will never pay for a Mac:
1. I can build a comperable windows based PC for a fraction of the cost of a Mac.
2. I want to be able to decide what hardware goes into my computer.
3. I want to be able to update the hardware rather than buying a whole new computer, and on most Mac models this is not possible (or SEVERELY restricted).
4. I want to be able to run the majority of software out there without having to intall another OS to do so (Boot Camp for XP).
5. I don't care about how a computer looks, and I'm not willing to pay more as a result.
What I'm looking for is function over form. Macs are good for some people, but the restrictive nature of the platform runs contrary to my needs. Heck, in my lab there are no Mac options for half the software that we use (some students ask). From our sequencer, to the RT-PCR the software is Windows only. This doesn't even get into the gaming aspect of things. Macs still suck at gaming, period. For less money than any Mac currently in production, I could build a Windows-based rig that would run circles around it's Mac counterpart.
I sounds like you're being honest, guy, but that doesn't really matter on Engadget forums anymore. As a PC user (maybe former now that I have a Macbook Pro) I'm disturbed at the behavior of a lot of other PC users. They're hyper-defensive about Microsoft. They're almost as bad, if not worse than a lot of the Apple fanboys.
So I suggest you follow the underwritten laws about comments if you desire to keep a high rank on Engadget.
The Official Guide to Avoiding Low Rankings on Engadget
1) Don't talk about Apple in any way positive, even if the praise is warranted and based on statistics, popular opinion, and actual sales.
2) Don't mention the iPhone in any Engadget post about a touchscreen phone, because as everyone knows, it is absolutely positively impossible that another company could be making a touchscreen phone because of Apple.
3) Don't suggest that Apple has innovated anything, because someone can always find an obscure company in Romania that did it first.
4) Don't suggest that a person might be a Microsoft Fanboy, because this is impossible, even if the aforementioned person has an Xbox, Zune, PC with Vista and every version of Windows minted in gold and platinum and a Bill Gates poster above the bed.
5) Don't say "First" under any circumstances.
Hope this helps! (before it gets faded :)
well actually, given Apple's ads, i say mac users are hyper offensive.
But they still compare mac to PCs in the commercials, and PCs commercials don't need to do that.
Dude, I really doubt that Mac users have input on what commercials that Apple decides to put on the air. So your anger against Mac people seems to be misplaced.
that was to respond the user above me. Of course you seem to nice guy lol. but it wasn't anger anyways, just an observation.
It's not like i don't use any Apple products. just not their computers.
RE: Paul Chapel
The attitude thing cuts both ways I'm affraid. Many of the Apple proponents here seem to think that Steve Jobs walks on water and, as in the case of Dave, that no one could possibly not want to use a Mac once they've experience the glory that is Apple. Well I have used a Mac (in school school from 2001-2003) and I prefer a PC; not Windows or Microsoft, but a PC. Why did Dave even post in this thread, heck why did you make the first post about your new MacBook when the article had nothing to do with Apple.
Attitude is not restricted to MS fanboys.
Well, I don't see what my first comment didn't have to do with Microsoft. They're extending XP and I expressed my frustration with Vista and the downgrade back to XP and decided to give something else a try. That's all I was saying.
People need to admit that they are alternatives. Some PC people act like everyone wants to build their own computer and save a bunch of money, even if they're dissatisfied with Microsoft. These people believe that saving a buck should be your only consideration when buying a computer. Some of us actually believe that you get what you pay for.
If I have to pay more for a better experience with Apple, then I'm willing to do that, and what's more, I feel it's time for a change. I've been using XP since I was in Junior High. I'm bored with it.
@Greg:
1. I'll give you that.
2. Ok, with you here...
3. You do know that Microsoft Windows will de-activate itself if you change too much of that hardware, right? Causing a re-activation headache. (It's headache if you have to do it at all...)
4. Can't really blame Apple for this... in fact, there's really only one company you can blame.
5. Agree
"to the RT-PCR the software is Windows only. This doesn't even get into the gaming aspect of things." -- Again, not really Apple's fault except for the point about putting in whatever hardware you want.
As a savvy consumer, you should be asking those people that make your programs if they run on more than one OS. If not, ask why. You should promote competition and avoid lock-in (from Mac and Windows.) It's for your benefit to use programs that you can move to another system if you see fit. Buying a windows only application is like buying a TV that only works with your home theater. It may "just work" but when your receiver is replaced, you'll need to find one that works with your TV and hope the manufacturer of your TV didn't decide to change the plugs. Of course, that analogy doesn't work in today's world because the home AV market is standardized for the most part and anyone cam make a stereo or a TV that work with another brand. Not being able to replace your OS with one that will run all your crap isn't the fault of the competition. There's only one company keeping that from happening by abusing patent and "IP" laws.
That's the first original mac comment I've ever heard.
Oh wait, it's not. Find something original to say, goon.
@Andir
Come on, the reactivation takes all of 2 seconds. Click the little icon, it connect's to MS's server, and boom you're done. I've never had to call due to a hardware change-- only (on rare occasion) on initial installation. Then you just read the numbers off to the machine, and it reads a set back to you. 5-10 minutes at the most, and it's damn rare at that. The fact that you *can* upgrade to Tri-SLI, add a Bluray drive, or add in a RAID card definitely outweighs the cons of having to re-activate should your system think it changed too much.
@Andir3.0
First to address your points
1 and 2. No issues here.
3. I've made major system modifications and never had to contact Microsoft, but this may be because I'm using an institutionally licenced copy of XP (and now Vista). I don't know if the hardware locks are disabled in this configuration.
4. I view it as market pressure. Is it worth the time and money to adapt a program for a Mac OS, when it represents only a fraction of the PC market? It all comes down to money.
On the specific topic of there being no Mac software, it's a bit more complicated than that. I'm in a very specalized field (Molecular Biology) and all the equipment is low volume, and in fact is normally sold with the computer as part of the package (Windows or rarely Linux). Part of the reason for this is that many of the devices need specalized boards, or hardware elements that are simply not supported by Apple. On the business side of things, there is the simple fact that the VAST majority of University computers are Windows based, and the cost to provide a Mac-based alternative is not financially viable. Keep in mind that these are high cost/low volume products here. We might spend $750,000+ on a DNA sequencer and gripe about it all the time, but the company is going to sell
@Andir3.0
The reply got cut off, here's the rest:
We might spend $750,000+ on a DNA sequencer and gripe about it all the time, but the company is going to sell
@Andir3.0
The reply got cut off, here's the rest:
We might spend $750,000+ on a DNA sequencer and gripe about it all the time, but the company is going to sell less than 1000 of these units in total...worldwide. The company would have to provide hardware and software support for two versions of the product, it simply doesn't make sense. The numbers (and demand) for a Mac variant simply isn't there.
"This would be a good poll. Woul you pay for your own office computer if it were a Mac."
Actually, I use a $16,000 Mac Pro at work every day and I would pay out of pocket for them to let me build my own Vista 64 machine.
Just so I'm clear here... I'm not a Mac proponent in any way. I'd much rather see people move to Linux, but my point was that as a consumer (maybe not of million dollar software...) we are all responsible for the lock-in to the Windows platform. If the world had adopted an open (not open source necessarily, but open spec) and standard platform that anyone could build their OS off of, you'd see much better desktop environments with full compatibility and better competition for your money. As it is right now, the reason Microsoft has a hold on you is that they manipulated OEMs into signing exclusivity deals, patent abuse, and licensing restrictions when the computer industry was booming. Hell, I even remember back in 96 when I was in college reading a document from the school stating that they were removing all Macromedia products from the PCs as part of an agreement with Microsoft in order to provide the school with cheap Visual Studio licenses. Shrewd (immoral?) business. Microsoft's bottom line. Selling virtual bits and bytes for premium prices. Planned obsolescence. et al.