Good Mac Arguing Points.
 

So, I just got into a huge debate in the IRC room I usually frequent over the price of Macs and how they're supposedly more expensive than the competition. I, like I usually do, decided to correct someone when they called Macs "overpriced pieces of **** that do nothing".

I cited everything, from specifications to OS X to design to TCO. Nothing seemed to work, as the people I was debating with seemed to burn holes in whatever argument I threw out.

So I ask: If anyone ever gets in these kinds of debates, what points do you use?

Is your time worth anything?
 

.
Well, I think a conversation stopper is this one: "Is your time worth anything?" with the follow-up question: "How much is it worth to you? One dollar per hour? Five? Ten?"

Then you can pull out statistics showing how much more time the average (or professional) Windows user wastes on their system.

• Initially (installation of drivers, etc etc)
• Maintenance (patches, other upgrades, etc)
• Frustrations (viruses and other malware, incompatibilities, etc)

...This, of course, has to be included as a cost.
.

In those kind of debates the only point that will be effective is the one on the end of a stick.

I don't get into those kinds of arguments. No point. Personal choice. Plus, Macs are overpriced for lack of competition. If you want to run Apple's operating system (and I do) you have to buy their computers. Fortunately for us, Apple/Ives design desirable pieces of kit.

I could never afford to buy the top-of-the-range models. I bought the beige G3 minitower and made many upgrade modifications to it. It still runs and operates my scsi scanner. I replaced it with a G5 PowerMac that is still running sweetly at five years old. I gave my dual-USB iBook to a relative when I replaced it with this white MacBook, the cheapest model Apple offer.

None of these machines have ever had a problem, unless you count the OEM DVD drive that had to be replaced twice under warranty in the G5.

I wonder how many WinTel users could say that?

As others have pointed out, it's a difficult argument to make. As far as I see it, the reasons for the extra cost are typically nothing to do with actual specs.

For starters, Apple make more profit from each sale that typical PC manufacturers, so that in itself does lend credence to the "Apple Tax" idea which is at the core of the issue.

Now, you can't present OS X itself as being of any value since anyone vehemently defending Windows isn't going to accept that argument. Nor will they accept things like ease of use, etc. Of course, going down this route often results in getting into the "lack of software"/"no decent games" issue that invariably crops up.

However, even when doing a spec-wise comparison of the hardware, it is very often the case that many differentiating specs are missed out (e.g. RAM speed, bus speeds, L1/L2 cache sizes, screen viewing angle, LCD panel type, power draw, screen resolution, keyboard size on laptops, inclusion of things like sudden motion sensor, backlit keyboard, etc.).


Yet, I personally don't think any of this is the real reason for the extra cost (except maybe the higher profit margins). In my view, the reason is quite simple. Size. Or rather, lack thereof.

Look at the Mac Mini. The MacBook Air. Pretty much every product Apple makes other than the Mac Pro. There is no wasted space whatsoever. Which means extra effort has to go into internal hardware layout, heat dissipation, and so forth. And they do it all without using bloody great big fans that sound like an aircraft taking off. So not only are the products small, they are quiet.

And as soon as you include those metrics when looking for comparable Windows systems, you will have a very hard time finding one cheaper.

You can point out the limited library of Software available to run on PCs compared to Macs, and the general low quality of most of it. Remember, a Mac can run the full library of Windows, Mac, and Linux/Unix software.

On the off-chance that anyone thinks my previous post was suggesting that Macs are too expensive, I should state that I do not believe this to be the case. In my view, Macs present the best value-for-money system you can buy (after all, that's why I bought one :)).

The key point though is how you define "value". For me, and my 17" PowerBook G4, it was the following (in no particular order):

• Fantastic looks
• Ultra-slim design (how many 17" laptops in 2004 were ~0.75" thick?)
• No need to worry about malware (and the two or three trojans which exist now can be easily avoided)
• Unix-based system (what I do requires Unix-y stuff :D)
• Exposé
• Ability to deal with files larger than 4GiB
• Bulit in wireless, bluetooth, DVD writer, etc.

Now, I paid £2400 for it :eek: in March 2004, but have only had to buy Leopard (£55) and extra RAM (£30), so it's currently running at around £450 per year in terms of actual expenditure. And there's still plenty of life left in the old girl - a SSD may be on the cards soon - so this figure is continually dropping. Not forgetting the fact that I've never had any trouble with it, save for a handful of kernel panics over its lifetime (and I'm talking 4 or 5, here).

A Windows-based machine that I would have got nearly 6 years* out of would almost certainly have been as expensive initially, and probably much more hassle over its lifetime.

*and counting - I don't foresee replacing it until Leopard is no longer supported.

Another thing to consider is the particular package/assemblage. If you consider the price/specifications in a given product and compare against products using identical hardware, the prices are a bit closer. You can't really compare against last year's, budget/bargain, or hand assembled machines (which is usually what the comparisons are against), since any given machine will be priced based on whatever deal the manufacturer was able to make with the suppliers at the time (and whatever their business/marketing plans are).

Also, you do have to figure in the OS R&D cost, since none of the manufacturers of Windows based machines develop their own OS. This is also probably one of the more overlooked marketing successes of MicroSoft - by licensing their OS cheaply, everyone wants to use it because it is cheap, so they get market share without really trying that hard. It doesn't work so much these days (e.g. Linux), but at the time it was genius.

And, of course, whatever machine someone decides to purchase, for whatever reason, is their own decision. My reasons or requirements will be different from anyone else's, so any argument is pretty much moot, except perhaps, for huge (and pointless) debates in something like an IRC chat room.

Really they are just different business models. As I am a member of several other technology forums I get asked for help on Mac stuff when they pop up since they know that I know a lot about the Macintosh Platform.

When you break it down, PCs have a different business model. They offer many different brands, or you can build your own giving the consumer lots of different choices and driving the price down from the competition. The OSes you can run are Linux/Unix (and varieties) and of course the most common, Windows. The business model is to get the most up to date technology out to compete with the other companies and also build a decent product.

Where as, with Apple, their model is to design everything from the ground up so they can control it, ensure that their product does what it is meant to do, and design it around the end user. Now, when I say they design it around the end user, Apple does do this pretty dang well, however, they do it the way Apple feels it should be. Where as Microsoft kind of lets you be the pilot and choose how you want your interface to be.

Microsoft has indeed innovated technologies that Apple has taken. Fast user switching, remote desktop (10.5 has built in screen sharing now), and there are many others I am not going to list. The difference in the business models of the OS is that Microsoft puts out feature limits on their releases now and lets the consumer buy what they want. Can't say I agree with the pricing but it is selling and they are making money so I guess they are doing something right.

The one thing I really dislike about apple is their desktops. I don't want a mini, and I don't want an all-in-one, and a Mac Pro is like 10x over kill for what I do. So, I almost always build PC desktops when I upgrade and I usually just buy Apple laptops. I think, hands down, Apple has some of the best laptops out there. I don't think their desktops are the best spec for spec. I wouldn't call them over priced, as I think that they are fairly priced for what you get considering what they are. I just wish Apple would have a pro-sumer mid range mid tower desktop.

I mean I built my PC last year and I built it for cheaper than an iMac and it has way better specs. My build included a 22" LCD monitor as well. If Apple made a mid tower with say a quad core processor, and then let the consumer pick out what video card and hard drives they wanted, I think they would sell the crap out of it, especially if it were marketed right. However, Apple's business model is to keep it simple.

I agree in the point that Apple should make available a Mid Range Desktop. Something on par with the Mac Mini's capabilities, but in a small tower with two or three PCIe slots, space for two hard drives and perhaps a couple of eSATA ports. This would put groups like Psystar out of business.

.
Speaking of which -- is there any good reason why eSATA ports are not yet standard on Apple’s desktops and laptops?

It’s been a number of years since I bought quad-interface harddisks from OWC/MacSales for this very reason, and yet the speedier connector is not being used by Apple. Why?
.

The fact of the matter is that the hardware argument is just about impossible to make. The best you're going to get is dead even. Why? Both Macs and PC's use the exact same hardware, generally at around the same price (when you compare the exact pieces of hardware to each other, not when you compare hardware specs.)

I've been working for Apple as a salesman for 2 years now, and if there's anything I've learned it's that if person can't see the appeal of using OSX, then you've lost 'the debate'. And the simple fact of the matter is, some people simply can't/won't use OSX. Some people are hardcore gamers, or perhaps they have high end engineering apps that are windows only. Whatever the reason, they need to use windows predominately, so why buy a computer with the wrong operating system?

As odd as it sounds, I've often found myself in a situation where I'm telling someone they might be better off with a PC. Why? Because they would be, why waste both of our time trying to convince them otherwise? What do want me to do, lie? That would be evil, I don't do evil (I might be salesman, I don't have to like it.)

In the end, your best bet is to just accept that a bunch of hardcore gamers are going to want to use PC's, and that's the end of it. On the other hand, if they use their computers for things like Movies & Music editing, you can make a more compelling argument. There are several other areas where the Mac really excels (not with Excel exactly, but you get the point.) The best way to win 'the debate' is to find out what the other person uses their computer for and see if the Mac is good for that. If it is, throw in the "almost no viruses" argument and the "very customizable user experience" point and you might have a winner. (oh, oh! and show them that it's pretty, people like that!)

[rant]
Lastly, if there's anything being an Apple salesman has taught me it's this: don't let Mac haters get under your skin. Live and let live. Why people feel a need to be snobbish about an OS running on a piece of silicon and plastic is beyond me (people are starving in Africa right now, do you really care that much about .exe v .app?) That goes for Apple fan boys too. I don't mind people being big fans of Apple (makes the job easier), but there's no need to be a prick about it. We just all have our preferences and needs, and they are fulfilled in different ways. End of story.
[/rant]

Sorry, had an odd day today, somehow an argument I had earlier got mixed in with my thoughts about debating PC users. This resulted in the above rant. I think the point stands though, so I left the rant there. But it is now clearly marked, so you can ignore it if needs be :).

Whaaaaaat????? :confused: Rather, I'm with tlarkin, # 9 third paragraph: "Now, when I say they design it around the end user, Apple does do this pretty dang well, however, they do it the way Apple feels it should be. Where as Microsoft kind of lets you be the pilot and choose how you want your interface to be." Indeed! Apple is like a fashion consultant that won't let you wear comfortable shoes because they're uncool. The idea being that Gucci cannot possibly be uncomfortable, because it's good design. Well, feet are different, and so are users.

For me, customisation is a Microsoft arguing point, as is file management. The essence of the fanboy position, confer Jay's excellent Rant, is a tautology: nobody prefers anything in Microsoft, by definition, because anyone who does so is clearly a moron and thereby doesn't count as a somebody.

I've heard fanboys saying "You can't do that in Windows", when I used to do it all day. It is as if a Toyota driver should diss Honda, VW or any other make on the grounds that a Toyota car has a steering wheel. Well, Toyotas are damn good cars, and they greatly resemble Macs in that they are the best choice for people who want no-hassle reliability, but hey, the other cars have steering wheels too!

What good stuff do I tell friends who ask about my Mac experience, then? Not bothering with AV, reliability, stability, ease of installation (my Windows supplier, who also sold me my big printer/scanner, came to babysit me while I booted up the iMac for the first time, in case it wanted an obscure driver. The iMac talked to the Lexmark first time, plug and print. Quoth the Windows man, "well I never!").

My arguing point, therefore: things work, right out of the box, with no hassle.

Anyone who's studied the history of religion knows that it's the tiny differences the people kill each other over, not the big ones. Muslims and Christians, Christians and Protestants, Protestants and Jews, Jews and Muslims - they fight because Islam, Christianity and Judaism are essentially the same religion, with minor variations (a statement which is likely to get me jumped on, mind you...). confront any of those faiths a dramatically different faith (like Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism), and you'll find almost no fights over religion. that's human nature - little differences challenge your self image a lot more than big differences. Mac vs. PC is a major issue; no one argues Mac vs PSP, PC vs. Cray, etc. The only way I've found of ending that kind of silly conversation (which is not a good way, mind you, but it works) is to make the embarrassment of continuing the argument greater than the embarrassment of not winning the argument. generally I use some variation on the "well that's very interesting, dear, but your mother and I want to have a grownup conversation now" approach.

When one or more people in an argument are ego-identified with a perspective, there's just no winning and no losing, not on the internet (you need face-to-face contact to have any hope of shifting that kind of ingrained attitude) - arguments of that sort that are just painfully interminable. best to put a stop to them early.

The old chicken and egg - Last time I went through the drive aisles of Bic Camera in Kawasaki there was maybe 1 or 2 drives (amongst hundreds) that had eSATA, and they also had Firewire 800.

Won't jump on you, but I think you're thinking too big. The Christians and Jews haven't had that big a disagreement in centuries (the nastiness in the 1940s wasn't based on religion). The Anglicans and Catholics had that minor tiff back in Henry VIII's time about a very minor point of dogma, and these days it's the even smaller difference between Shi'a and Sunni that's resulting in gunfire.

Or avoiding them altogether. Life's too short to waste it on stupid people. ;)

well, philosophically speaking, I have to quibble just a bit. religious disputes only play out over centuries (it usually takes several generations for any religious innovation to take firm root in a culture). The jewish genocide under the Nazi regime is a fairly direct result of maybe a thousand years of judeo-christian interaction (note that a primary reason why jews were both wealthy and hated in europe was that early catholicism didn't allow christians to lend money to other christians at interest - jews stepped in to fill the needed role of money-lender/banker). add that the Nazi party (unlike other forms of socialism of the time) was not anti-religious; it adopted the post-christian philosophical mysticism that you find in people like Hegel, Neitzche and Heidegger. and the Anglican movement set the ground for the reformation and the 100 years war (which actually lasted more than 100 years), and was really an extension of a debate over the position of the clergy in the faith that stretches back to the 4th century. not exactly a minor tiff. :)

but mostly I think we're agreeing, so I'm not going to sweat the small stuff - lol.

Sure they use the same hardware, but it is not always the same configuration of hardware. Like eSATA or quad core processors in desktops, and so forth which make up some differences.
Just like some people will only use Linux, because in their mind Linux > everything. That is just going to happen, just like the MS and the Apple fan boys that will argue over split hairs on which platform is best.

Some people like convertible cars, and other people don't. Really, it comes to mostly personal preference in my opinion if you want to use Mac or a PC.

The problem Mac has with these users is that they don't offer anything that appeals to them. Like I said earlier, they want a mid range desktop with a quad core processor and some massive hard drive space and a good video card. So they can do things like edit video, play games, and do things on a half professional-consumer level. Apple has 3 desktop models. Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro. The first two are niche items and really you can't compare them to PCs. This is because the fact that the mini is so tiny. You can't compare a full blown desktop to a mini because they are different products. Just like you can't compare a desktop PC to an iMac, because an iMac is an all in one.


This is just like anything else, fan boys are fan boys. It could be cars, kitchen wares, bikes, OSes, guns, sports teams, electronics, consumer goods, and so forth. There are some people that won't ever change because they like certain products. That is just how it is.

@TLarkin: A Niggle right back at you: "the Anglican movement set the ground for the reformation and the 100 years war". Well, the Hundred Years War was in the century or two before the Reformation. Are you thinking of the Thirty Years War, perchance? Shorter but nastier -- just like me.

I think you were responding to TW there. I didn't get all philosophical and stuff:D

Guilty as charged, Your Honour. Sorry; got a bellyache, it's distracting.

By the way, TW: far from jumping you, I very much agree with your point about the three Abrahamic religions. "The narcissism of minor differences" is what the psych boys call it. And in a bloody-minded religious society it is much better to be a heathen than a heretic.

Whoops! what I get for not fact-checking the output of my own brain. or wait - are you sure there wasn't a time machine involved in that, somehow? :D

I can upgrade your Thirty Years War to a Hundred for 29 dollars, if you place the order before the end of the year. Or send me three wars, and I'll combine them and throw in the last ten years of massacre, starvation and cannibalism for free. :)

By "customization" you mean that I can build my computer to use the cheapest Celeron CPUs and VIA components, then you're right. You won't find a Mac with crap hardware.

As to Apple dictating how I run my system couldn't be further from the truth. I can customize OS X to my hearts content.

Apple is in the hardware business, and builds the highest quality/best engineered computers on the market (Check Consumer Reports and Popular Mechanics). Microsoft writes software. Because MS has to leave their system open so that anyone can write drivers for even the worst of hardware, they also have to leave it open so anyone can write viruses and malware. This is the true reason Macs don't have viruses.

can I substitute outcomes - trade in the whole religious schism thing for something more post-apocalyptic, maybe? Zombies are optional, but you have to make sure that the city-wreckage is scenic city-wreckage; the post-apocalypse won't be any fun if everything looks dumpy.

If you want to compare the ability to customize the interfaces of Windows Vs. OS X, Windows will come out ahead. Just the sheer number of third party apps that allow this is way much more than a Mac. To some people this is a non issue. To me it is a non issue as I like a clean desktop, with a dock and now that 10.5 added spaces I am pretty content with my OS X desktop.

When I build a PC I don't use low quality no name parts. Last year I built this for 1100 and change plus like $100 or so in rebates so in the end it was just over $1k build.

Intel Q9650 Quad Core processor
4Gigs of Corsair RAM
2 TB of SATA2 HD space
EVGA Nvidia GTX 260
Antec True PSU 900w
HAF 932 Coolermaster Case
Asus motherboard (P5N model I think)
22" Samsung LCD Monitor
16x DVD Burner
*motherboard came with eSATA, FW, USB2, Bluetooth and a slot for wifi card if I wanted it, gigabit ethernet, built in 6 channel digital audio

My PC is 1 year old and I did not use low quality or low priced or no name parts and I got a killer deal on it. You couldn't beat that with a Mac for the same price.

Now, I don't think that is a fair comparison because the only true desktop Apple offers is the Mac Pro. The iMac and the Mini aren't really comparable to this because they are in a different class of machines. The mini is in the small compact micro ATX realm, and the iMac is in the all-in-one category. So, I try to not compare them to what I built, but spec for spec for your dollar you can almost always build a PC for a bit cheaper than what you get with Apple.

I am not saying that Apple makes low quality machines at all, I think they are all high quality, but I don't think they make a higher quality machine than what I can build either.

I'll just say (as someone who's reasonably good with Windows, but much better with Macs), that the reason I dislike Windows is that dealing with anything out of the ordinary is such a royal pain. In normal operating conditions, Windows and the Mac OS have always been roughly equal (well, the Mac's always been a bit more intuitive and friendly for me, but maybe that's just me..). but let something go wrong... ugh! Even serious problems on the Mac I can solve with a little bit of investigation and a few trial runs; on Windows, it may take me hours just to figure out where I'm supposed to start, and then the real fun begins.

just my PoV.

There are some people who I don't want to use the Mac because the net effect of people like them switching is to degrade the platform. Fortunately, most of those people won't switch anyway, so there's no need to argue with them unless there are other people present that they might be swaying. In that case, I point out that Windows apologists use terms like "properly configured", "maintained", and "antivirus software" while my 80 year old father who knows very little about computers manages to do whatever he likes on a Mac without trouble — except when he lets some "PC expert" use his machine.

If you're referring to themes, I have to disagree. Themes are readily available for the Mac as well. Actually, they've been available for the Mac longer than Windows.

I happen to be the person that wrote the first Control Paneled theme for the Mac (WDEF III) back in 1990 for System 7, long before any themes were available for Windows. This was actually the second publicly available WDEF (Window Definition) made available. I was inspired by the original NeXT WDEF, a very, very basic WDEF written in C. I modified and improved the original and release that publicly as NeXT WDEF 2, then I started from scratch, rewriting the whole thing for 4 color support on color Macs. WDEF III was written on a Mac+ and gave the user NeXT like windows as well as a Smooth WDEF version that stopped streaking on the early greyscale Mac notebooks.

BTW: While WDEF III was shareware, I only received payment from one person; Greg Landweber, the author of the later popular theme utilities, Greg's Buttons (System 7) Aaron (System 8) and Kaleidoscope (System 8+OS 9). His paying the Shareware fee gave him access to the original code. I never cashed that check. :)

I don't hold up the whole who did it first thing on any kind of pedestal at all. The fact remains when it comes to themes, Windows has more of them. Quantity does not always equal quality but they do have more and more options for an end user. I was simply pointing that out, not trying to say one OS is better than the other.

Windows can look like a Mac, look like a classic mode PC, look like gnome, or whatever. I mean the Windows interface can be tweaked to emulate any interface you want it to.

I do prefer the Mac platform in most cases, but there are a few exceptions where I like Linux or Windows better in a few regards.

In reality the differences are business model and it comes down to personal choice?

Lest you think those of us who used it were just cheapskates, I used it back then, for a day or so before reverting. I think I installed it once again later on, just to show somebody it could be done. If I did, I removed it soon after. Not that it wasn't well done, but themes are distractions, and while there are always going to be those who like them, distractions detract from the user experience. I think that's why Apple has discouraged themes in OS X.

I've yet to see themes on Windows, as hard as they try, that comes close to the Mac interface. I would never consider trying to install a theme to look like Windows.

@cwtnospam - Not a problem! I did it for fun and shareware was a brand new thing. Few ever made money with it back then.

I've used Win machines and I've used Mac. Mac is better. What else needs to be said?

You guys are forgetting the old days..... remember when the other machine didn't have a mouse? Pull down menus? Windows 95 was a huge catch up, but still ......

Remember the days when adding a device to a Win machine was pure torture, and Mac was buzzing right along with "plug and play"?

Sure, if you want to compare MS office on a Mac and a PC, well not much difference and I'll be the first to admit that Windows has closed the gap to a pretty good degree.... but I still remember the old days and I am sold on my Mac(s).

Having just encountered this thread and read through it, I must say that I agree with tw & woodsman that it's because the differences in the broadest sense are actually small. Having said that, it's a value judgement, nothing more, nothing less. As the owner of two Hondas, I've never understood why anyone would drive a Chevy either.

Nope, I was talking about something else entirely and I think so was Jay.

Squawked here on the Forum when I had switched, this time last year, and NaOH pointed me to some partial solutions to the interface customisation I needed. It's about coloured backgrounds in apps. White surfaces, at any rate in the evening, really murder my eyes, in Windows I can set background colours at OS level, which then work in everything except webpages. NaOH taught me Online View and background colour in Word, and Thunderbird for the sake of its coloured panels, but the various tricks don't quite add up to what I had in Windows. Sometimes, therefore, I work in sunglasses, though I had to get them customised too, as the iMac emits polarised light that clashes with the sunglasses I had before. Being told that I can't do my thing because it would compromise Apple's design values I found quite provoking. Even though I have Shades as an essential app, it remains my opinion that making the iMac without a properly functioning dimmer is incompetent and an insult to the paying customer.

So, to relate back to the thread title, I would argue for Mac to a Windows user on other grounds, as indeed I described, but not on grounds of interface customisation. Or even interface generally; I think Finder is an abomination, and that's my taste and preference. But as I say, it's easy to report 100% satisfaction if you ignore the dissatisified on the grounds that they are idiots who just don't "get it", and so their user experience "doesn't count". Which is the vibe I often get. (That's a closed system, the same dynamics as religious fanaticism -- if you don't buy my testimony, the devil must have hardened your heart.) So when I recommend Mac to friends and colleagues, I do so with a reservation about fanboy exaggeration they might encounter elsewhere. I think they appreciate the realism.

I often am exactly the same way. Out of most of my close friends and pretty much all of my family I am the only technology adept person, everyone else is quite inept. So, I often get asked for help and my opinion. I tell my friends/family that there are pros and cons to running different platforms. I almost always rule out Linux to all of them and the ones that want it, I tell them that they will have to be patient and learn on their own as I don't have the time to teach them everything. I taught myself, but I took the time (about 4 years of steady usage) to sit down and really use it and learn it before I got handy enough where I could use it in my sleep.

A lot of people are turned off by the price of a Mac. That is just one major thing. Arguing over it, is ultimately pointless and you are just likely splitting hairs or playing to one fan boyism or another.

I try to give down to Earth advice. I say if you want to do this and this Mac and Windows can both do it. If you want to play video games, just get a PC.

Of course if a car has a steering wheel that falls off when you try to change lanes it might not be a selling point.


Egg.

But what basically got the Anglicans going (to the detriment of the Catholics) was Henry's demand for a divorce from Catherine. That's the minor tiff I was thinking about.

And the Nazis weren't anti-semitic in the 'you are Jews, we are something else' sense, they were just anti-semitic and white supremacist. They didn't care all that much what religeon people practiced, as long as it wasn't Judiasm. Yes, the beliefs are centuries in the making, but there wasn't that much direct causality.

However, this is getting _really_ off topic :D

Touché! But then, in my simile, the Toyota fanboy would already have told the prospective Honda owner that he must resign himself to being unable to change lanes at all, so he probably wouldn't try it. Seriously, the real-world equivalent of the steering-wheel here is stuff like "You can't transfer files in Windows by drag-and-drop" or "It takes ten operations to dismount a stick".

Constructive suggestion for those with friends or family who bitch about the price of Macs: find an Apple fanboy who says "You can't do XYZ in Windows", lay a bet with him, do XYZ with witnesses, and take his money. Lather, rinse and repeat, and soon you can stand your buddy a Pro for Christmas. :p Maybe it would work the other way round, too, so that Mac-haters get to finance your cousin's next games machine.

I agree that the Nazis were by no means traditional Christian anti-Semites, although they used some Christian rhetoric and profiled themselves as the party of Family Values contra degenerate liberal modernity (cough). Their animus against the Jews was primarily because they identified them with not only said liberal moral degeneracy but also with the Bolsheviks. This was not entirely unreasonable, as the correlation between Jews and communists in the period was very high, but they made it out to be even higher than it was. All Bolsheviks were Jews, they thought, and therefore (sic) all Jews were Bolsheviks. However, Nazi anti-Semitism used themes from previous versions of anti-Semitism, all the way back to the medieval Blood Libel, as well. So -- the Jews were at one and the same time Evil International Capitalism and Evil International Communism. Neat trick, eh? That way the Nazis could recruit both those who were pissed off at greedy financiers (like we are now) and those who were afraid of Communists murdering them in their beds and appropriating their small businesses. So who did that leave?

Would you care to unpack that? Sounds like social snobbery to me. Reminds me of the upper-class Englishwoman on her wedding night: "Tell me, husband, do the common people also enjoy this pleasure? They do? Well, it's much too good for them!"

So, in what way specifically do clueless and/or uncool people using Macs damage the platform -- if that's what you are actually saying? I'm deeply uncool myself, and no geek either, but I don't see how the way I use my machines should degrade the platform or the experience for anyone else. I mean, I'm not actually infectious, surely? Are people really running round making like a Bateman cartoon (you´ll have to google that, you colonial) and saying, "If he is using one, it can't be any good"?

Since when did racism need reasoning? The Nazi's didn't really have or need reasoning. Nor did the heavily anti-Semitic Americans of the period.

Sure. They tend to be IT techs (not all, but many are IT techs) who only know Windows and want to treat every system they run across as if it were just another variation of Windows. While these people don't make up all of IT, they do represent a significant portion of it.

It's these types who see nothing wrong with porting a Windows app directly to the Mac without bothering to adhere to Mac UI guidelines. That is one of the ways they harm the platform. Another is that they lower Mac user expectations by repeating claims like "the Mac is just as insecure as Windows", which in turn reduces social pressure on developers to produce quality software. The result of that we already see in Windows: large quantities of low quality software. I don't want to see that on the Mac.

Back in the '90s I had a brief but final argument with a windows guy. Went like this:

"Name ONE thing you can do on a Mac that you can't do on Windows."

"Use 12 characters in a filename"

Sadly not true anymore, but worked for over a decade.

Hate to be the bringer of bad news, but when was the last time you went over to versiontracker.com? There's already a ton of low quality software out there for Mac.

Frankly, it's not a bad thing. People have to start somewhere, and since I don't know anyone who starts of as the best programmer the world has ever seen, I must assume they start somewhere else. Probably in the "sucky" area if I'm not much mistaken. They do get better.

In the mean time, the best way to keep your software experience "pure" and "undefiled by Windows" is to not download low quality software. Banning others from the platform is illogical, people have to learn somehow, and if that means starting off with low quality and working up, then there you go.

There are good developers and bad developers and that is on every platform. Apple doesn't get a free pass of being higher quality, because in many cases it is not. It is just different.

That reminds me of one of the greatest Apple ads ever:

C:\NGRTLNS.W95

As you can see, it’s made the rounds. :D
.

You've missed my point. Here's an example: Adobe software used to be great, back when it started on the Mac. They made a few things and made them well. Now, they're more interested in producing large numbers of packages than they are in doing any of them well. It's that attitude of selling the most products to the most people that results in crappy software, not that somebody's new to the business. High volume/low cost is not the Mac way for good reason: it leads to mediocrity.

I agree that just trying to push a big IP from windows over to Mac OSX could, and would, be a problem. Take X3:the Reunion or Madden for an example. They tried to use a re-bundled version of WINE called "Cider" to port games over to Mac. It wasn't pretty, but they wanted a quick buck. They didn't even make a vague attempt at following GUI standards for OSX, and the execution was very low quality, to say the least (well, at least for X3, which I have). And while I do enjoy the game (when it works), the overall impression is very "broken" if you will.

Taking short cut to save some cash usually costs huge dividends in trust and reputation, that's for sure. And if that's what you mean by "Apple knows better than this" then I whole heartedly agree with you.

It's more than that! Can you think of any software that got ported from the Mac to the PC that was bad? Adobe's products astounded PC users when they first got ported to the PC, so it's not just taking a big project from one platform to another. There's a level of inherent quality that comes with the culture you build the original app for, and getting the wrong PC users to switch, or even too many of the right ones too quickly, is bad for the Mac platform's quality.

From what I hear, Safari and QuickTime on Windows don't have a great reputation.

In the world of Linux WINE is buggy with games, and it always has been. I tried it, and ended up just going back to Windows for gaming. Windows has better gaming hardware and better support. They don't make the newest and latest and greatest video cards for the Mac, and the video card is the key component these days with gaming.

The gaming companies approached Apple years ago and wanted to develop for Apple and Apple gave them the cold shoulder. Jobs did not think computer gaming had any future and that consoles would be the gaming system of choice. Microsoft provided game developers will tools like Direct X, Apple did not.

In all honesty, both PCs and Macs do the same things about on the same level. Whether it is Linux, Windows or OS X. I think that Windows does perform a bit slower than Linux and OS X, but I also look at how much legacy support Windows has. There is good and bad with it, and when I say perform slower I mean very marginal. My current Windows machine is just as snappy as my Macbook Pro.

So, when I help consult a friend or family member I ask them a few questions. One of them being if they prefer Mac or PC. If they say PC I don't try to convert them to Mac, but if they say they don't know which, I then give them pros and cons. If gaming is in question I just tell them to get a PC.

Gaming is not a huge factor for everyone, but even if you want to casually play the newest games, you might as well get a PC. There are a very few companies out there, like Blizzard and id, that actually port their games to Linux, Windows and Mac.

It is too bad Apple won't work harder with the gaming companies and video card companies to get better support. I also think the lack of them having a decent mid tower also turns off some people. I love my iMac at work, but not sure if I would buy one for personal usage because I would like to swap out my tower and keep my monitor in future upgrades.

Don't forget iTunes, it also crashes a bunch on Windows. I always use quick time alternative for my web browser in Windows as regular QT is bloated and it sucks on Windows.

I also hate Windows Media Player with a passion too. I pretty much use VLC on both my Macs and my PCs.

I've used them both and see nothing wrong with them. I haven't used them a lot because I try to avoid using Windows at all, so there could be problems I'm not aware of, but I'd expect problems with any software that runs in Windows just because it's running in Windows. ;)

My reference to quality was intended to be about the user experience though.

I think one of the best arguments for pro mac is Apple's business model and when you look at the total cost of ownership. I had an old G5 running 10.5 and it is about 5 years old. Try getting a 5 year old PC to run Vista is going to be hard, Windows 7 maybe.

I do think that Macs will last longer on the end of life cycle as far as technology goes. Minus your wear and tear parts like hard drives, but that goes for all computers.

Lest we start thinking Mac users are equal citizens or something... wellllll, not so fast. Just tried to download a grant application from HUD.... no can do, requires the latest version of Adobe Reader and 9.2, apparently, is not late enough even though it is the latest Adobe will give me.

HUD did let me have the instructions... tried to open an Excel file in the instructions folder and got a warning saying Office for Mac:2008 does not support some kind of stinkin' macro and the spreadsheet will not function as needed for electronic grant submission to our own government. The US govt is prejudice against Mac users..... doesn't that make them worse than racist?

Course, we can use the print dialog to "Save as PDF" and our XP using friends cannot.

Yeah, I know I could run Windows, but I refuse. Old, stubborn, set in my ways, etc.:)

P.S. For our friends overseas, HUD is Housing and Urban Development, a federal agency.

That has got to be the fist time in the histoy of the univese that a government (any government) has been ahead of the technological cuve on anything (err... anything not related to killing, torturing, or spying on people, that is). though in fairness, this is an adobe issue - I've been running into that particular problem for at least three years. I think the issue is that Adobe (for whatever mindless reason) chose to use activeX components to make that system work (even though Adobe already supports javascript, which would have been the more obvious choice).

edit: my bad - that can't be true, because I have filled out forms on my Mac; I just keep running into documents that my mac won't handle. that might be because adobe distributes updates quickly but lags dramatically on creating updates for Mac. pardon my grumpy moment. :)

Ha. You were most kind compared to what I was saying under my breath. BTW... the politically correct word for idiot is... bureaucrat (even though I was one of them there bureaucrats for a while.:))

Maybe we should spin off a thread on bureaucrats?

My definition is a person who doesn't do Task A because he's too busy not-doing Tasks B and C, and contrariwise.

If course, you don't get this only in the public sector, corprats do it too.

In this case, I don't know if the bureaucrat failed to check for Mac compatibility, or worse, she did check and decided the heck with them and went ahead with the windows only version.

The site does have a "minimum requirements" chart which says Mac is good all the way back to Reader 8.1. Note the site will not let me download the file based on the version of Reader on my computer, as opposed to the file not actually working on my Mac after it is downloaded. May be a bug in the download programming, as in checking only for Windows version and shutting every thing else down. That would make the IT the bureaucrat!

I'm eating a lot of crow over this one.... had to ask a Window user friend (associate) to get the file. And the Windows friend will have to do the grant submission, too, because my Mac isn't up to the task.

Won't be bragging on my Mac for a while because they now have the perfect argument in support of Windows... no compatibility problems because Windows is what everybody uses! Hard to argue with that because that actually is the case!

Actually, Windows is rapidly losing share. Macs are increasing in user base, and various flavours of Linux are also coming to the fore. So it's important to tell people that they DO have a choice, and that the argument "that's what everyone uses" is not a good reason anymore.

The other thing is that you should avoid sounding smug when espousing the Mac's benefits. I know lots of people who are turned off Macs because they've had to endure some evangelist.

The best argument is to let someone watch you perform a task on a Mac. I'm amazed how many Windows users are simply gob-smacked when they watch as I boot up (quickly), select a few things, launch a couple of apps, produce a document and then send it via email to them.

:eek:
No compatibility problems??? How about compatibility between different versions of Windows (and Office), not to mention the 32/64 bit fiasco forcing users to choose different versions of 7. Then there's the home/office/pro/ultimate/super pro/super ulitimate crap. What's that if not compatibility problems?
I don't think that argument is ever valid. On rare occasions it might happen to be true, but more often than not it's the thing that "everyone uses" that is best to avoid. Remember the Ford Pinto? A Number 1 seller. The PC? Also a best seller.

If you're going to use sales volume to make a decision, do it this way: Look at what the lemmings are buying, then look for alternatives to see if there is something better.

You know, bureaucracies were originally created as a kind of division of labor - the creation of subunits (bureaus) designed to handle specific tasks efficiently. However, they've turned into tools for diffusing responsibility, where every person in a bureaucracy is trying to simultaneously make his/her subordinates responsible for performance while keeping him/herself independent of superiors (words like 'productivity' and 'efficiency' have no actual real-world referent; they are euphemisms that allow a bureaucrat to claim to be a strong, independent leader riding roughshod over lazy, intransigent employees). very Hobbsean... I actually have a neat Buddhist analysis of the modern bureaucratic world that I may get around to writing up one of these days. :)

The golden rule of bureaucrats: "Protect thine ass".

how biblical. next you'll be telling me that Jesus rode into the temple on a bureaucrat. ;)

The real bureaucrat is the gal that has been doing nothing for so long, she actually gets PO'd when you give her some work to do.

When I was working for the state, we had an understanding between employees (the competent ones at least). The agreement was this: The state pays our salary, feeds our family and makes it possible to for us to pay our bills. Therefore, we are morally obligated to provide them a minimum of two solid hours of honest work EVERY SINGLE WORK DAY. As it turns out, we did a lot more than most....... way too many people were hall monitors.

(Actually, we usually managed to put in a lot more than 40 hours a week and ended up taking some home to do.... cause at home I had access to my Mac which made the desktop publishing & web pages a lot easier to handle.)

What do you get if you cross a bureaucrat and a donkey? Answer: A really stubborn, extra lazy jackass.