1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by von Rothbart, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. Babar

    Babar Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    549
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Norway
    Its always been the argument against Mac's. They aren't very upgradeable. They have proprietary hardware, they tell you what hardware you want instead of you deciding.
    Wha!? Pro desktop Macs are fully upgradeable. It's just the cheaper ones where only the RAM chips and HD are user-replaceable. http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html As you can see, no proprietary hardware. My PowerMac uses two IBM G5s, the GPU is an ATI 9800XT, the RAM is standard DDR SDRAM chips from Crucial, the HD is a S-ATA Maxtor drive, the optical drive is from Pioneer, and the list goes on. All fully replaceable. It's just to pop the lid open and do it oneself.
     
  2. denimonio

    denimonio New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

    I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".


    dude, don't worry. you'll still get to play all your precious games late night.

    http://www.cnet.com.au/games/0,39029232,40061763,00.htm

    this argument is old. stick with your custom nissan if you like.
    i prefer german cars.
     
  3. hopkins_student

    hopkins_student Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,218
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

    I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".


    Perfect.
     
  4. Tck13

    Tck13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Philly
    2: Ok Mr. Fantasy land, go buy a Mac CPU or motherboard at the computer store. See ya in a few years when you figure out that you can't. There are no third party CPU's or motherboards, RAM is fine, but you can't upgrade it, only put in MORE, and how many more is limited by your PROPRIETARY motherboard. If I wanted to upgrade to 4GB of PC2-7200 memory from my 1GB of PC-3200 I could do it. I could switch from my AMD processor to an Intel Processor and still run all the same programs and keep my RAM, HD's and optical drives static. Can't do it in a Mac.

    What do you do with your computer? Why do you need 4GB of memory? On my iMac G4 (4 years old, no additional memory) I run itunes, photoshop, illustrator, store pics, edit pics, small movie editing, burn cds, watch movies, word processing, faxing...

    Why would you want to? I don't know. Why would you want to have a faster computer without buying a whole new $$$ box? No idea. Continue to fall for the hype. Ignore the voice of reason. Nothing to see here.

    Its always been the argument against Mac's. They aren't very upgradeable. They have proprietary hardware, they tell you what hardware you want instead of you deciding. PC's are much more versatile machines. It's always been that way. You COULD easily build your own Xbox. All you would need is the OS. Xboxes are just PC's after all. It wouldn't be cost effective though, because video game consoles are generally sold at a pretty steep loss.

    The "upgrade" they are talking about is for the two newest apples only (mini and iMac), and its just because apple was too cheap to solder the CPU to the boards like they usually do to keep you from upgrading. If you REALLY feel like spending $260 on an overpriced CPU that you will have to add a water-cooling system to, re-time your RAM, and probably end up breaking your power supply...go right ahead. It's not an official upgrade, and the computers in question were not designed to be put under that kind of load. It's not like a PC that you can just upgrade your CPU to the top of the line in your slot/socket configuration whenever you want and it probably won't cause any problems. The mini and iMac weren't designed to be upgraded at home. Thus my point. Also, if you need to add a cooling fan, or a new power supply to your PC, you can.


    The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

    I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".


    I thought Macs were a lot more different than all of the IBM clones.

    I bought a printer / fax / copier, plugged it in and it worked.
    I bought a camera, plugged it in and it worked.
    I plug the ipod in and it works.
    Never had any problems with the computer and I can count the number of times (on two hands) a program or software crashes and I have had to restart the program (in 4 years). (not the os)

    Why is it bad that I don't want to work on a computer to get it to do what I want?
    I am not a mechanic, I just need to get in my car and drive it without any problems. I want it too look good, and work well and do what I need it to do.

    For me, as an average person that isn't interested in IT, Macs are perfect - AND different from the herd of crashing, virus infected, ugly doorstops that are out there. (I've used Macs and PCs) Macs are infinitely easier to use.

    Edit: So, I'm not diverse because I bought an iMac? That makes a lot of sense?!?!
     
  5. skalogre

    skalogre Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,324
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    What do you do with your computer? Why do you need 4GB of memory? On my iMac G4 (4 years old, no additional memory) I run itunes, photoshop, illustrator, store pics, edit pics, small movie editing, burn cds, watch movies, word processing, faxing... I thought Macs were a lot more different than all of the IBM clones. I bought a printer / fax / copier, plugged it in and it worked. I bought a camera, plugged it in and it worked. I plug the ipod in and it works. Never had any problems with the computer and I can count the number of times (on two hands) a program or software crashes and I have had to restart the program (in 4 years). (not the os) Why is it bad that I don't want to work on a computer to get it to do what I want? I am not a mechanic, I just need to get in my car and drive it without any problems. I want it too look good, and work well and do what I need it to do. For me, as an average person that isn't interested in IT, Macs are perfect - AND different from the herd of crashing, virus infected, ugly doorstops that are out there. (I've used Macs and PCs) Macs are infinitely easier to use. Edit: So, I'm not diverse because I bought an iMac? That makes a lot of sense?!?!
    This depends greatly on what you do. Trust me. The whole plug it in and it works depends on many things, including native mac support. The iPod for exam,ple. Initially designed FOR A MAC. What about the HUGE amount of peripherals that have no native Mac support? What happens with those? Most printers are the same for the PC as long as they are plug and play USB. And cameras. And the whole ugly thing, well, that is why you shop around for a custom rather than a big-box PC. Those are not different from Apple's machines in lack of expandability. Look at say a modern aluminum Lian Li case. OR a Shuttle for something different. Granted there are things that are easier to do on a mac but I can tell you that as a trained CHI guy, there is A LOT that is just plain stupid design that Apple keeps around because of their perceived value (sorry but a bouncing dock is not any sort of panacea). Apple, like Dell or Gateway, wants you locked in. Nothing new there. As I said previously, any advantage on hardware is pure fiction. The looks are entirely subjective. Sorry but a computer with all the imaginative design of a white Ford Mondeo (eMac anyone?) will not compare with something like a well designed case from a dedicated company like Lian Li. You do not compare Bertone & Pininfarina to some proprietary case made to look like a giant iPod. Apple's ONLY strengths are end-to end integration and the BSD roots of the OS. NOTHING ELSE. Remember what you may think is user friendliness is in most cases the fact that you have a process with controlled variables. Only One CPU with One OS with One driver with One way to connect. The iPod is the perfect example. It is "easy" to use because of the fact that it was designed to work ONLY ONE WAY. In a nutshell that is why I think this move of Apple's is either a) suicide or b) proof that they are putting a more and more importance to their multimedia company way and they are ghetting qaway from the cutthroat personal computer market. IBM had a lot of sense to sell their PC business and they are a bigger and smarter company than Apple. P.s. Please do not say anything about Apple being historically the PC for artists. That is pure fiction. Read up on the Atari ST and the Amiga and how those two had cornered the music and video market from the beginning and you still find them in the back nowadays 10-15 years past their prime with system critical functions. P.s. 2 The only reason I would ever get near a Mac is for OS X's BSD roots (a real UNIX based OS). I do not like the constrictive nature of the UI though and hate the cheap, unimaginative hardware design. Anyway, the OS and the H/W is shrinking in importance with time - give it another decade and all this will be a moot point.
     
  6. Tck13

    Tck13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Philly
    This depends greatly on what you do. Trust me. The whole plug it in and it works depends on many things, including native mac support. The iPod for exam,ple. Initially designed FOR A MAC. What about the HUGE amount of peripherals that have no native Mac support? What happens with those?
    Most printers are the same for the PC as long as they are plug and play USB. And cameras.


    I have a Hewlett Packard printer / fax / scanner and Canon 430 Digital Camera. I think the real myth is that there are no peripherals designed for Mac. There are plenty. Of course there are more peripherals for IBM clones as there are millions more of those computers.

    This is my point. Why should I go through all of that work to shop around for a new case, build a computer to fit the way I want it to look when I could just buy a good looking machine out of the box. Why should I pay more for a custom computer if everything I need is in my iMac? If you don’t like the way it looks, why does that make Apple a worse computer than any other? They don’t all look like eMacs and if the bouncing dock is the biggest complaint than switch it off or don’t use it

    Your logic is off on this one. I would hardly equate an IBM clone (even with a Lian Li case) or some computer that you built with similar specs as an Apple to Bertone and Pinifarina. Looks are subjective and Apples looks are different that IBM clones, like them or not. That is just a matter of personal opinion. That is still no reason (and I’m not saying you said this) to think Macs are junk or bad computers.


    See above…

    Fiction? Apple was always ahead in the music and design department. However, I'm not sure that's the case anymore. My guess is that Mac's are still more used by graphic designers and recording studios. Of course, that's speculation, and I have no way of backing that up.

    Funny you should say that though, I think I am going to sell my iMac on ebay and get an Atari ST. [​IMG]
     
  7. SGladwell

    SGladwell Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    PC = Bespoke.
    Bespoke, sure. As long as you like poly-blends and icky bubbly glue. Besides, nobody does custom laptops (the biggest segment of the computer industry, remember), unless you count those bizarre gigantic things that use desktop bits and require six people to carry. And nobody else does a light, thin full-power laptop. (To give Dull credit, they finally managed to copy the aesthetic of Apple's venerable Titanium PowerBook, albeit executed in crappy plastic instead of Ti/carbon fiber and about 2x as thick.) Even in the desktop realm, if you build your own you still will have to deal with some ugly-ass separate box and a shitty monitor of often inferior resolution clad in indifferent plastic when in the iMac you could have everything integrated nicely into a package that's barely bigger than the other computer's monitor. (IMO, the only people who need Mac towers these days are people in hard-core graphics/video industries. Everyone else's nonportable needs more than adequately served by the iMac or even the Mac mini.) Not only that, but in the event something goes wrong it's not like you can just call AppleCare and get it fixed no questions asked. (Presumably; I've never had actual occasion to use my AppleCare packages.) You have to deal with different vendors and different warranties, wherein one may well say someone else's widget caused their thingy to break and leave you in the cold. Besides, between easily accessible RAM slots, Firewire, USB, and Bluetooth any Mac from the mini up is upgradable in the areas that matter. Maybe if your life revolves around blowing fake shit up on a screen you'll be peeved that you can't change the graphics card, but then like the graphics/video editing pros you can spring for a massive aluminum tower. For those of us not in the graphics or video production industries with lives that's no big deal.
    I have spent a little over $1100 building and upgrading i[t].
    $1100! Ouch! To think that for a mere $75 more you could have instead bought a modern computer with a built-in high resolution 17" widescreen monitor that takes up far less space, uses far less power, and operates far more elegantly. That's a little bit like buying Gap jeans for $35 with a shop next door selling deadstock Helmut Langs for $38....
    How is your nine year old Mac holding up?
    Sorry, in 1997 I was still in the dark, using ugly and expensive things that crashed on me every time I inhaled. Actually, I think it was in late 1997 that I paid about $5400 for a Dull Inspiron with a 13.3" screen (1024x768) and a massive 4GB hard drive, running Win95 OSR2. It replaced a 2 year old Dull Latitude that was clunky and all but unusuable due to its 12.1" 800x600 screen but that cost somewhere in the range of $4500. That was my last personal commitment to that side of things, though I've updated my abhorrence of them through too much contact anyway. However, I still have my Titanium PowerBook G4, received in Jan 2001. Since then, I have put a little money into it, upgrading the HDD a few times and upping the RAM to its max allowable (1GB). The screen is considerably dimmer than my MacBook Pro's incredible monitor, but truthfully there's nothing I do on the MBP (except for run that other thing) that the old 500mHz G4 TiBook can't do. It runs OSX 10.4.6 quite well. I've imported my whole CD and LP collections in Apple Lossless using iTunes, edited movies using iMovie, organized my photos using iPhoto, done all of the writing and spreadsheet use I need to, and so on using that old machine. Some things need additional parts (a USB Bluetooth stick or Firewire DVD burner, for example, whereas the MBP has both built in) and some things (transferring large files) take more time but it can do them. In general use, monitor aside there's truthfully little difference between the two machines. I daresay that no PC built in 2000 with its original processor and bus will be able to run Vista, but I fully expect to put OSX 10.5 Leopard on the TiBook. (Oh, and as an aside, I'm going to Boot Camp this week. Faculty here can buy MS junk for about what it's worth - $5 for XP Pro, for example - so I figure it's worth the cost of two chai lattes to have the extra flexibility of running SAS on my own machine.)
     
  8. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    Lets see:

    Dell uses Intel chips and Mac uses Intel chips.
    Dell uses Windows and now Mac also uses Windows.

    Sounds to me like Mac is basically a PC maker that also happens to make software and has its own OS on the side, Mac is also a company that makes MP3 players, as long as Apple Corps. doesn’t win the lawsuit against Apple Computers.

    Sosumi indeed…

    Jon.

    Mapple is now Wapple
     
  9. Tck13

    Tck13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Philly
    Lets see:

    Dell uses Intel chips and Mac uses Intel chips.
    Dell uses Windows and now Mac also uses Windows.

    Sounds to me like Mac is basically a PC maker that also happens to make software and has its own OS on the side, Mac is also a company that makes MP3 players, as long as Apple Corps. Doesn’t win the lawsuit against Apple Computers.

    Sosumi indeed…

    Jon.

    Mapple is now Wapple


    Yeah, can somebody explain that? Why is Apple suing Apple. I keep hearing about it but don't get it.

    Also, after all of this, I still don't understand why Apple put the Intel thing in their computer?
     
  10. SGladwell

    SGladwell Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Also, after all of this, I still don't understand why Apple put the Intel thing in their computer?

    Because of the G5 PowerBook.

    What G5 PowerBook?

    Exactly.
     
  11. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    I would like to mention that I think Apple has been very innovative and ahead of their time in their designs:

    One of the first home (personal) computer systems
    First user-friendly GUI
    First mass use of the mouse
    One of the first companies to make digital cameras accessible to consumers
    One of the first companies to implement flat-screen technology
    One of the first companies to make PDA’s with handwriting recognition
    First usable implementation of a portable MP3 player in conjunction with specific software

    Ok, so off the top of my head, that’s 7 innovations. And how many succeeded in letting Apple gain a significant share of its market within 5 years of being released? Only 2. Why? Because Apple has a great R&D department and a horrible commercial implementation / viable department.

    I like how Apple try’s to innovate the market, but I don’t like their Sony-like Betamax vs. VHS tactics. However, unlike Apple, Sony has a fantastic overall track record when it comes to releasing items and gaining monetary income / revenue from its expenditures.

    Jon.
     
  12. CTGuy

    CTGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,459
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Location:
    Boston/Houston
    I like how Apple try's to innovate the market, but I don't like their Sony-like Betamax vs. VHS tactics. However, unlike Apple, Sony has a fantastic overall track record when it comes to releasing items and gaining money income / revenue from its expenditures.

    Jon.


    I agree with your sentiments. I have a lot of respect for Apple. I think that generally the design of their products are superb and often ahead of their time. However, I think that their aim to protect their products with incompatibility is generally very short sighted and pretty negative for many consumers. In the long run, I think what we are seeing right now is sort of an eventual capitulation by Apple to a reality that in order to be competitive and to build superior products, you need to allow for a certain level of compatibility.
     
  13. skalogre

    skalogre Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,324
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    I agree with your sentiments. I have a lot of respect for Apple. I think that generally the design of their products are superb and often ahead of their time. However, I think that their aim to protect their products with incompatibility is generally very short sighted and pretty negative for many consumers. In the long run, I think what we are seeing right now is sort of an eventual capitulation by Apple to a reality that in order to be competitive and to build superior products, you need to allow for a certain level of compatibility.

    Razor's edge. Same thing that MS hates. No stranglehold means less $$$. Like MS, they are slowly coming to that realization.

    Now about what I mentioned earlier.. bouncing dock was just an example of fluff I gave - there are a lot of much worse offenders.

    No company today has been able to make any sort of interface innovation that matters. Everything is just a tweaked rehash and Apple is especially guilty of that. There is indeed academic research in the CHI field but nothing that any company has the cojones to implement. Apple is locked in to the Mac "look and feel" while M$ is just struggling to keep the underparts of Windows from exploding. For some interesting but as of yet unimplemented ideas, read the late Jeff Raskin's (yes, THAT Jeff Raskin) The Humane Interface. I can give you a few dozen more CHI/UI reading suggestions but my point is that usability is a joke in general. No company has done anything worthwhile. There has not been a significant change or paradigm shift since Xerox Lab's mouse/gui idea...

    Computers are still stupid and unnecessarily complex. The "friendly" PC (ie Mac) is still this way. Windows has made improvements but it is still as complex on the surface as ever. Some Linux/BSD distros have had EXCELLENT ideas but they do not have sufficient leverage/capital/userbase to make a dent.

    See, now I am ranting. I remember when I was working on my senior project in University, the more books I went through the more angry I got with the blatant stupid design decisions of current OSes.
     
  14. SGladwell

    SGladwell Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Why? Because Apple has a great R&D department and a horrible commercial implementation / viable department.
    Then again, it is only recently that Apple's been about design. Old Apples may have been better built (and correspondingly more expensive) than their competition, but they followed the same beige paradigm as everyone else. Well, they've done the all-in-one forever, but while that may be an advantage when your screen is a beautiful 15-20" widescreen LCD it isn't when your screen is smaller than your competition's and grey-scale instead of color. What makes Apple different and better today - ever since Jobs tapped Ive for the first iMac, really - is their design. Build quality is probably only a little better than the competition, and most of the parts are the same stuff everyone else uses. (Small-n evidence aside, Consumer Reports' surveys indicate greater reliability from Apple than other firms in the industry.) However, the rest of the world hasn't moved beyond the big ugly box paradigm, while Apple does things right, giving extreme users the big ugly box with the expandability they need and allowing consumers to save space for more important things than a damn computer. The MacBook Pro and even the Mac mini may be a little bit pricey if you just focus on the hardware costs and assign no premium to the superior design, but the iMacs are screaming deals. Especially the stock model 17" one at $1175 factoring in the Amazon rebate, which drops to $1150 if you use your Amazon credit card because for every $~800 you spend there they send you a $25 gift certificate. (I received $50 in certs for my MacBook Pro, in addition to the hopefully soon forthcoming rebate. So another way to look at it was that the Complete New Yorker was a $13 option on my MBP.) That sum buys you the most modern computer hardware you can get today: the newest cutting-edge processor, a top graphics card with a beautiful monitor and provision to extend your desktop over a second screen, the top hard disk standard, all of the wireless built in, wireless remote, webcam. Not to mention the perfect form factor, superior OS, and superior included software (iLife, Quicken, etc.). As it happens, I was having this argument with a colleague today. Here's the closest comparison of a reasonable machine (fancy enough to have legs, but not overdoing things) I could get from a name brand competitor that has an actual service policy. (DIY may or may not be cheaper, but is indisputably a service hassle.) They don't offer a 17" monitor of acceptable resolution, so I'm comparing 20" models. Also, to keep things fair I'm not using student/faculty pricing, but the price that anyone who went to their respective websites would get. From Apple, 20" iMac BTO with -1GB RAM -250GB disk -128MB VRAM -Mighty Mouse -3 year AppleCare -Software bundle including OSX, iLife, Quicken, Migration Assistant, and other stuff, on disk as well as installed. $1968 non student. Link. From Dell: XPS 200 (their slimline desktop, which still takes up quite a bit more space than an iMac) with cheapest processor (old design, not Core, but higher GHz) -installation CD (Apple includes it, so only fair) -remote (FrontRow!) -128MB VRAM (on older graphics card than the iMac's, assuming that higher numbers = newer at least; also, no mention of dual monitor support, though for these purposes let's assume it does) -1GB RAM -250GB disk -8X SuperDrive (or whatever they call it) -20" widescreen Note that the monitor and computer are two different, clashing colors! [​IMG] -Audigy (stock card doesn't seem to have digital out) -enhanced keyboard (Apple's has more functionality than a standard PC keyboard) -Speakers in monitor -Logitech Mighty Mouse equivalent -no productivity suite -3year service -phone support for 1st 30 days (free with Apple for 90 I think) -Premium Entertainment Pack (poor iLife sub, but closest available) -1450 WLAN AirPort adapter Wireless wasting a USB space instead of being built in! [​IMG] -cheaper of the two offered webcams (iSight built on iMac, not a clunky accessory) -cheapest Migration Assistant equivalent -Norton (not same as iMac, but not needed on a Mac, either) -Quicken 06 (included free in iMac software bundle) $2164 Link. Note that to get them truly equivalent you have to also add the following, with prices from macmall.com: Cheapest FireWire PCI card: $30. Cheapest Bluetooth adaptor: $15. So let's call it $2200 for the clunky 2-piece non-matching Dull setup vs. $1950 for the sleek, elegant iMac. If I didn't absolutely need a laptop, I would've bought an Intel iMac over the MBP in a heartbeat. The economics are pretty compelling. And when the widescreen iBook replacement (MacBook) comes out, I might just sell the MBP for a probably minimal loss (Apple stuff holds value well, unlike lesser marques) and split duties between an iMac and a MacBook.
     
  15. tangerine

    tangerine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco CA
    ...M$ is just struggling to keep the underparts of Windows from exploding...
    I originally read this as M$ is just struggling to keep the underpants of Windows from exploding, which I totally agree with. [​IMG] I still don't understand why anyone thinks the mouse was a good idea. I hate the damn things. I don't recall anyone ever having carpal tunnel syndrome before the mouse was invented. I use all the keyboard shortcuts I can learn. For the geeks, and to inject a little levity, let me remind everyone that all operating systems suck.
     
  16. Tck13

    Tck13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Philly
    Razor's edge. Same thing that MS hates. No stranglehold means less $$$. Like MS, they are slowly coming to that realization.

    Now about what I mentioned earlier.. bouncing dock was just an example of fluff I gave - there are a lot of much worse offenders.

    No company today has been able to make any sort of interface innovation that matters. Everything is just a tweaked rehash and Apple is especially guilty of that. There is indeed academic research in the CHI field but nothing that any company has the cojones to implement. Apple is locked in to the Mac "look and feel" while M$ is just struggling to keep the underparts of Windows from exploding. For some interesting but as of yet unimplemented ideas, read the late Jeff Raskin's (yes, THAT Jeff Raskin) The Humane Interface. I can give you a few dozen more CHI/UI reading suggestions but my point is that usability is a joke in general. No company has done anything worthwhile. There has not been a significant change or paradigm shift since Xerox Lab's mouse/gui idea...

    Computers are still stupid and unnecessarily complex. The "friendly" PC (ie Mac) is still this way. Windows has made improvements but it is still as complex on the surface as ever. Some Linux/BSD distros have had EXCELLENT ideas but they do not have sufficient leverage/capital/userbase to make a dent.

    See, now I am ranting. I remember when I was working on my senior project in University, the more books I went through the more angry I got with the blatant stupid design decisions of current OSes.


    I don't think it will be to many years until there is a big change in the way we use all of this technology. I think the cable, music, phone, and computing industries are really trying to figure out where all of this is going to go. It is all coming together and whoever figures out how to make it all work and be consumer friendly will be the winner in the upcoming 50 years.
     
  17. Tck13

    Tck13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Philly
    I agree with your sentiments. I have a lot of respect for Apple. I think that generally the design of their products are superb and often ahead of their time. However, I think that their aim to protect their products with incompatibility is generally very short sighted and pretty negative for many consumers. In the long run, I think what we are seeing right now is sort of an eventual capitulation by Apple to a reality that in order to be competitive and to build superior products, you need to allow for a certain level of compatibility.

    I don't know the answer to this question but...

    Are they making products incompatible or are they just making the products for their own computing system?

    The ipod wasn't made for MS when it first came out. I think that along with the popularity of the ipod came the necessity to make ipod compatible with other OSs.

    On one hand, Apple loses large profits by limiting the compatibility with other MS computers but retains the value of their own products due to their uniqueness and appeal to Mac users.

    Although, as I said earlier, if they didn't make the ipod compatible, they would be crazy (and probably vilified).
     
  18. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    This is a retarded argument. Go back, rethink it, and try again.

    $1100 over a nine year span for a computer that is still fast by today's standards *or*

    Assuming you buy a new Mac every 4 years or so:
    $? computer in 1997, $? computer in 2001, $? computer in 2005

    My computer is probably as fast as the mac you theoretically purchased early in 2005.

    By the way, that iMac is ugly. Not as ugly as the old candy colored ones... but ugly. And the screen is too small.
     
  19. Matt

    Matt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    as i posted earlier Slim, my seven year old Mac laptop comfortably outperforms my 2 year old Windows one. With no viruses, no constant popups telling me some weird Norton error that wont go away, it doesnt get as hot, and for some reason I keep having to reinstall Windows on the PC every six months or so. It gets hit up by a virus every couple of months...and thats without even getting me started on the OS.
     
  20. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    as i posted earlier Slim, my seven year old Mac laptop comfortably outperforms my 2 year old Windows one. With no viruses, no constant popups telling me some weird Norton error that wont go away, it doesnt get as hot, and for some reason I keep having to reinstall Windows on the PC every six months or so. It gets hit up by a virus every couple of months...and thats without even getting me started on the OS.

    People who have problems like that are doing something wrong. Didn't I tell you that those penis enlargement pills were a scam? Never had a virus, OS has never blue screened during normal operation, Norton and Macafee are garbage. They help propagate the viruses so that they can stay in business. As a matter of fact they used to sell windows code to the Chinese govt when they had a virus writing and electronic sabotage program. A firewall and some discretion is all I use.

    By "outperform" what do you mean? Are you benchmarking it with shared platform software or what?
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by