Because I’m in the professional creative industry, I get a lot of flak from Mac users who cajole me for basing my operation on a Wintel platform.
For those who work in publishing, design or media production fields, it’s sort of expected that you own a Mac. Macs are a symbol of creativity. An apple icon emblazoned on a business card shows to others just how true to creative you are. I actually have to make an extra effort to tell all the designers with whom I work that I’m on a Windows system. They’re embarrassed to know me.
However, today, I came across yet another reason why I don’t buy Macs: konfabulator.com
Let’s back up…
About four months ago, Apple pushed its latest OS release (Tiger) by heralding a specific feature called “widgets.
Just spotted this post…
Yeah, I think all the reasonable justifications for the “Mac = Better” have basically fallen by the wayside…
… though I still encounter the attitude a lot in CG and graphic design circles. I think in that area, it’s a holdover from back in the day when you couldn’t GET certain programs for Windows.
Then again, my brilliant uncle who works for Microsoft only buys Apple, so there must be SOMEthing to it. 😉
Apple…
I prefer Apple over Windows now because Apples have a real UNIX core and are easier for me to deal with. The whole “it’s perfectly plug-and-play” thing has gone by the wayside over the years, as now there’s pretty much parity between your ability to just plug crap in and have it work. Mostly.
But I’m a UNIX admin, thus… I prefer Mac 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Windows on Apple
Apple announcing that users can use Boot Camp to run Windows on the most recent Mac machines is pretty big news. It’s actually gargantuan news for both users and the computer manufacturer world. The combination of Mac processing power with the Windows operating system means that everyone who couldn’t switch to Macs because they were invested in an entire library of Windows-based software no longer has an excuse.
Of course, per my above post, is it really necessary to spend more money for a perceived design and user interface premium? The answer is yes, if virtualization becomes full reality, and users can instantly switch back and forth between the two OS without having to reboot.
Perhaps this creates an opportunity for companies like Dell? For the hardware manus that are locked into reseller obligations with Intel and Microsoft, they are now loving the idea of growing revenues with Mac-based systems that carry both Intel processors and Microsoft software. This could be a new avenue for them.
The crazy thing about it all is that for all the brand recognition and awareness amongst the public, Apple computing commands less than 5% market share.
Let’s hear it for designers!
Apple’s brand recognition and awareness is due entirely to brilliant industrial designers and marketers. They were seriously struggling until some industrial designer (Jonathan Ive, if you must know) came up with the idea of making the iMac “cute”. Add to that a brilliant marketing campaign, and the genius simplicity of the iPod, and you understand why Apple has a reputation that far exceeds its market share.
To understand the true differences between Microsoft and Apple, watch “What if Microsoft designed the iPod packaging?”
— Ben
I was quite intrigued myself
I was quite intrigued myself when I heard this. However, the main advantage that I’ve always heard Macs have over PCs is intuitive ease of use, ie you sit someone who’s never used a computer down in front of a Mac and they’ll pick it up far faster than a PC.
Obviously, a Mac running Windows loses this advantage, so it begs the questions: especially now that Macs are running on Intel chips, is there really a tremendous difference in the processing power. If so, how? And if not, then what are the other advantages, other than the cool design?
A couple points
I think the argument of Macs costing more than PC’s is no longer valid and hasn’t been for some time. Apple’s are very competively priced. Especially considering the performance.
This is still as much as any other single computer manufacturer. Apple also continues to be VERY profitable. I’m sure Steve Jobs doesn’t lose much sleep over OS market share.
The question was also posed on this thread if Apple can claim performance superiority now that they are on the Intel chip. The answer is yes. The new Macs run an Intel Duo-Core chip at speeds up to 2 GHz. The processors, for now, are only made available from Intel to Apple. Apple’s tests show these chips are up to 4 times faster than their previous Motorola-Apple-IBM built engines.
Apple still has a huge advantage in that their OS simply runs better. They have not bogged every version of the OS down by maintaining compatability with decades old software and legacy limitations. The OS supports a much much much higher upper limit for addressing RAM (the old G5’s could address 16 GB) meaning a MAC user can tackle tasks not even capable on Wintendo machines due to the PC’s 4 GB memory limit.
Apple’s next obvious move will be to make their OS available to Pentium family users. A lot of things signal that that move is not far off. When they do that Microsoft will suddenly find themselves looking over their shoulders at Apple quickly gaining on them in the desktop OS market.
Think that isn’t possible? Remember when Netscape was on top of the web browser world? Yeah, the same thing could easily happen in the OS world.
Market Share
No need to get defensive. I think what Sam was saying is that it’s remarkable that Apple has so much public recognition, when compared to its relatively small market share. The public is aware of Dell or HP or Gateway of course (do they still make Gateways?), but Apple has gained this counterculture public image, the conception that they are David fighting the Microsoft Goliath. Marketing genius, I say.
— Ben
Yeah
Don’t worry, I’m not defensive. I was just trying to add a little clarity to the point.
The thing about the Apple market share discussion is that it is important which market you are talking about. Apple is squarly competing in two markets with the Mac. The OS market and the desktop hardware market.
In the OS market, yes, their share is quite small. In the hardware market, compared to any other single manufacturer (I think many people are quick to judge Apple’s market share compared to ALL Windows-based PC’s) they can hardly be called relatively small. Apple’s 3.3% share puts them in 5th place in all computers sold in 2005. Dell claims a 33% share due mostly to their very strong server sales. Apple’s shipments grew by 32% in 2005 meaning their share grew faster than the market as a whole.
I’m no Mac evangalist, in fact, I don’t even own one. But I think fair is fair. They sell a lot of boxes and make a lot of money doing it. They are a huge operation and it should be no surprise that they are recognized.
Price and Share
Paul, great points. Thanks for the technical info.
I personally don’t see today’s Macs as competitively priced. Looking at a MicroCenter circular, a new AMD 3000+/1GB RAM/160 HD/DVD-RW box with XP Home is $400. Although this doesn’t include a monitor, I feel this price point is lower than any new iMac or iBook for the average home buyer that uses their computer for basic stuff.
I do recognize that the Macs offer a more powerful computing environment. To this point, I simply will not record at a studio that is running Wintel.
Contrary to your assertion, I read last week in an article surrounding the big news that Dell was 30% market share on all shipped Wintel PC orders. That’s a massive number in share. Apple continues to be profitable and the profitability has to do with a range of consumer tecnology products, not just the PC category. For instance, 70% market share of a certain portable mp3 player.
By making their OS available to Pentium family users, do you think that Apple is joining the rush for large government sales? I hear from a friend at Dell that the U.S. residential market has gotten to a saturation point, but that government and business sales are the strong growth drivers.
Affordable…
You’re right, Apple doesn’t sell many off-brand CPU powered machines with a stripped-down OS 🙂
But they do sell an inexpensive, stylish, well-built, full-powered machine. I submit for your review the Mac Mini
To be clear, Apple has not yet made thier OS available to Pentium users. You can run Windows XP on their Intel hardware now thanks to Boot Camp.
The idea of running Mac OS X on a pentium was nothing more than my personal prediction.
Data
A few notes:
Windows XP 64-bit supports up to 128GB of memory. However, Paul is correct that Windows suffers due to its backwards compatability stance. I think Windows should come out with it OS without backwards compatability, and allow you to install all the junk that allows it to be backwards compatability, with the warning that this will reduce speeds by 50% and increase bloat by 75%.
I don’t think Apples are more or less powerful than PCs. You can get either hossed out if you have the money, and the price is comparable. Apple doesn’t sell knockoffs at low prices, which is good and bad depending on your point of view. That “stripped down” version at $400 is exactly what most people need who do email and surf the internet.
What Apple does well is make the computer more like an electronic device akin to a Walkman or DVD player. It’s simple, and it works. PCs have the same capabilites, but they’re just not as user friendly. Since I’m a computer geek in IT, I like that, because it’s job security. 🙂 Apple is way ahead on packaging and marketing, but Dell and others are catching up. Their main problem is that they run Windows, which currently is just not user friendly.
The best thing Apple did for the Mac was to make it run BSD under the hood. Then you have the entire Linux community available to help Mac development. Mac OS X on a Pentium shouldn’t be that hard because it just becomes BSD running on a Pentium with a few tweaks. I think.
For mainstream computer usage, Windows is still very viable. Most Windows applications do what you need them to do. Where you break down is the fringe applications, and you can’t modify Windows apps very well because Gates has the source code locked up. Linux, and now Mac OS X on BSD, has the source code available so its much easier to get that specialized functionality you need.
My $.02 Weed
QFT
QFT.
—
Matthew P. “UNIX 4 EVER” Barnson
QFT
QFT = Quite Freaking True (or a bluer equivalent)???
My $.02 Weed
QFT ==…..
QFT == “Quoted For Truth”
—
Matthew P. Barnson