Forums | MacLife

thebobs wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

I don't think they would be any worse off offering OS X on commodity hardware. As long as the APIs are published and there is some QA or something like the WHQL it would not be bad.

As it sits I'm not all that impressived with OS X over Windows. For all the hype about integrated hardware and software that just works I find the macs at work doing typical screwy computer stuff like opening a document with the wrong program or something just stops responding and I have to force quit it.

I can get a windows machine with good hardware and signed drivers from WHQL and it seems about the same to me when it comes to just working. *shrugs*

Quoted for truth.

And for the record, having lived with mine for 2 months now, the mini is slow at MANY task, the reported simplicity will attract some new users, but the lacking performance will turn many off.

Well I have it and I am not impressed with raw power but it does the job of entry level mac pretty good. You always get what you pay for for hardware and with apple itis not much. You do get better software though.

Steyr AUG wrote:

jetson wrote:

cream always rises to the top...

There is "still" the basic fear that Apple is not compatible with Windows.  To me, this is the core of the problem with gaining market share.  Fear is the reason people won't try Apple.  Once you touch it and see the possibilities, and the compatibilities, you're doomed to be an Apple forever...

There is however, the problem that apple is not compatable with a lot of the hardware out there.

Trying to find drivers that work well for a run of the mill MegaConglomCo scanner for OSX can be a nightmare sometimes.

You know, I used to think that until I upgraded to OSX and realized just how customizeable this OS is.....

There seems to be a patch, driver or software for almost ANYTHING. And for your scanner, ever heard of VueScan?

Twisted Guy wrote:

Switcher wrote:

pcguy wrote:

Is it possible to found out what is the R&D budget(percentage/gross sale) on Apple vs Dell vs Intel vs IBM.

I like to know if apple is actually spending a higher percentage of their budget vs other electronic company!

dell has almost none r&d and apple if compared to Intel,IBM or AMD has almost none R&D

You got any numbers to prove that?

I did somewhere but I am too lazy to look for it
It also depends if you look at the total R&D for the company or division by division Dell has the lowest R&D for sure I am positive about that and IBM has HUGE budget for R&D you must not forget they develop whole manufacturing processes for semiconductors and that is big bucks
Intel is the same case as IBM they do not make just CPU's you know and AMD has bit smaller budget than INTEL but they do make alot of other semiconductor products not used in computer industry.
Apple while using a lot of money compared to other computer manufacturers does not make the parts and thus has no costs associated with semiconductor manufacture. It is more of design research which is just people costs not multi billion plants involved here.

HackerJax wrote:

As it sits I'm not all that impressived with OS X over Windows. For all the hype about integrated hardware and software that just works I find the macs at work doing typical screwy computer stuff like opening a document with the wrong program or something just stops responding and I have to force quit it.

I can get a windows machine with good hardware and signed drivers from WHQL and it seems about the same to me when it comes to just working. *shrugs*

We've just transitioned from Windows 2000 to XP along with brand new Dells. The one glaring thing that is clearly better in regards to OS X over Windows is multi-tasking.

In general, I just like Mac programs better (Final Cut,  iLife,  iTunes, Safari, Keynote [cool transitions], even MS Office 2000, etc., etc.). Also the OS definitely seems to flow more logically. Then again, I've used Macs since 94 and have only started using Windows 3 1/2 years ago due to a job change.

HackerJax wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

We've just transitioned from Windows 2000 to XP along with brand new Dells. The one glaring thing that is clearly better in regards to OS X over Windows is multi-tasking.

I might notice it if the applications I primarily used were on the Mac and if I weren't using a dual processor PC workstation.
So far I really can't tell a difference besides the PC i'm using is faster than the macs at my disposal currently and has more RAM.

Dual processors are quite nice for multitasking. Too bad laptops don't have them

jetson wrote:

cream always rises to the top...

There is "still" the basic fear that Apple is not compatible with Windows.  To me, this is the core of the problem with gaining market share.  Fear is the reason people won't try Apple.  Once you touch it and see the possibilities, and the compatibilities, you're doomed to be an Apple forever...

That's the wall I always hit: I almost had my daughter-in-law convinced to get a Mini and get rid of her virus ridden, bogged-down-by-spyware,adware,etc. PC, but her husband said noway - because it won't run Windoze. Which of course is the whole point of dumping the PC - to have a computer with a secure, reliable OS.

I have noticed that a lot of PC users who weren''t raised on computers and only use them for email and web stuff (like my daughter-in-law) are simply giving up on computers altogether, and letting them gather dust in a corner once they become unusable because of viruses and all the usual stuff that plague PCs.

After using a PC at work for 9 months, I can sympathize. After some business software required a change in resolution, the fonts in everything were so tiny I coudn't read anything without pressing my nose against the screen. So I changed the default font sizes so I could see, and now everything runs together and overlaps on pages when it draws! My boss thinks I should have known that doing that was going to be a mistake; I'm just used to a system that "just works"

Plus, by the time one factors in the money spent on antivirus, antithis, antithat, software for PCs, plus the hassle of installing and upgrading all the time, Macs don't look so expensive.

Pariah wrote:

Personaly the only thing I like about Macs is the OS.
I use Macs inspite of the hardware, not because of it.

This is the truth. However, now Apple is being known for its innovative design, as in the G5 tower. Let's face it, after seeing that layout, I can't see why anyone would want a "chips in a box" generic PC "design" unless they didn't care about the insides of their computers(most people).

Steyr AUG wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

We've just transitioned from Windows 2000 to XP along with brand new Dells. The one glaring thing that is clearly better in regards to OS X over Windows is multi-tasking.

I might notice it if the applications I primarily used were on the Mac and if I weren't using a dual processor PC workstation.
So far I really can't tell a difference besides the PC i'm using is faster than the macs at my disposal currently and has more RAM.

Dual processors are quite nice for multitasking. Too bad laptops don't have them

and that is why we weill have dual cores hehe

HackerJax wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

We've just transitioned from Windows 2000 to XP along with brand new Dells. The one glaring thing that is clearly better in regards to OS X over Windows is multi-tasking.

I might notice it if the applications I primarily used were on the Mac and if I weren't using a dual processor PC workstation.
So far I really can't tell a difference besides the PC i'm using is faster than the macs at my disposal currently and has more RAM.

Agreed I worked on a dual opteron workstation running 64 bit linux that thing screamed.

wellfleation wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

thebobs wrote:

No, it depends if you are honest about what you are experiencing in raw performance and not tinting your results with the emotional bonds Mac users feel toward their machines. I love OS X but the mini is underpowered and I suspect there will be quite a backlash when people start upgrading to Tiger.

So I am lying then, about my Mac mini being fast at many things?

I guess you may need to elaborate on the tasks the mini seems fast at. You kind of sound vague, kind of like our president on issues of "reform".

Perhaps you missed the discussion earlier in the thread, but my vague comment was a quite whitty response with a winking emoticon and all    to the following vague statement regarding the mac mini's performance:

thebobs wrote:

And for the record, having lived with mine for 2 months now, the mini is slow at MANY task

Call me crazy, but I am quite unsympathetic with people that people would purchase a machine that is quite clearly NOT designed for high end performance, and then get the machine and complain about the high end performance, as if Apple pulled one over on them.  Perhaps they couldn't read the specs, or are such Apple fanboys that they expect everything Apple makes to meet everyone's needs for everything.  Sorry folks, that is not what the Mac Mini was designed for, and if you bought it because you expected it to be fast at everything, then you were quite misguided in your purchasing decisions.