General discussion


Why only Windows?

By jardinier ·
I started a discussion on "Windows versus Mac." It attracted 3 responses before I declared it officially dead. I KNOW there are a lot of people out there using Macs, and swearing by their advantages. But they never (seldom?) post questions to techrepublic. Perhaps it is because they already know all the answers. No sarcasm intended: this is a serious question. If Macs are supposedly superior, I would like to broaden my knowedge by learning why this is so.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

My 2 cents worth

by timwalsh In reply to Why only Windows?

Apple has (almost) always supplied high quality hardware with easy to use software. It essentially comes down to "if you want a Macintosh, you have to deal with Apple. This meant that Apple could always control the prices they could charge for their products.

If you want a PC, you can go to (you name a popular PC brand), the Mom and Pop PC shop on the corner or even build your own. There has always been a choice of processors (some better than others) that follow the PC standard. This (healthy) competition is what allows you to be able to get a decently configured computer, for less than $1,000 for a number of years. Macintoshes have always cost more (sometimes as much as 100 percent more) than similarly configured PCs.

There was a brief spark of hope during the '95 - '98 timeframe when Apple actually authorized clones of the Macintosh to be made. This produced some healthy competition with the Macintosh and prices started to drop. Apple saw its profits being eroded andshort-sightedly put a halt to the clone market. This essentially put an end to any real chance for the Macintosh to compete with the PC from the standpoint of market share.

Macs still rain supreme in certain markets (graphic-arts/desktop publishing is one), but PCs are narrowing that margin. Apple still holds the edge in schools, but this has more to do with how the schools acquire the Apples (low prices or outright donations), than any other factor. However, more and more at the high school level you will find classes dedicated to PCs and PC software, because that is what students are most likely to be confronted with once they enter the workforce.

It simply comes down to marketing strategy. Look how many PC vendors have made loads of money (on low price PCs), while Apple continues to struggle selling its ?superior? yet overpriced products.

Collapse -

Business environment

by generalist In reply to Why only Windows?

First and foremost, Macs aren't usually considered to be a business machine. They have a tradition of being relegated to the academic and artistic world.

Second, Macs aren't something that the accountants will purchase for general business purposes because they were trained on IBM compatibles. Even if they had Apple machines in elementary school, by they time they hit the business world they realize that the IBM compatible is the defacto PC standard.

Third, Macs are easy enough to use that you don't have many problems.

Fourth, when it comes to specialized applications, there isn't as much Mac software as there is IBM compatible software.

Collapse -

# of Users

by TheChas In reply to Why only Windows?

I think that you can find some incite by looking at the main page of the Technical Q&A section.

Out of around 45,000 Questions, less than 200 are in the Macintosh category.

That equates to 0.44%

Since more users use the Q&A forum than use the Discussion Center, one could conclude that there are very few Mac users on the site at all.

Another thing, there is not a lot of Mac specific content on the site either. So, what reason does a Mac user have to visit here?


Collapse -


by fred07 In reply to # of Users

So why shell out 100 plus for a mac OS when a windows is 75 or less.
Do you really think ol bill is funding mac for fun or truly because he is NOT worried at all.
Without bill's money mac would have been long gone
and bill would be in the monopoly courts.

Collapse -

Gates funds Macintosh

by jardinier In reply to MONEY

I have frequenty heard that Gates owns a piece of Macintosh. But I have never been able to verify this from an authorative source, nor do I know how large is his stake in Mac. I would be very grateful to receive more specific information.

Collapse -

gates Personal loan

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Gates funds Macintosh

About 18 months back the situationre Apple and Macs got bad in that they had a really bad cash flow problem brought about by poor accounting management allowing them to put too much cash into assets and not enough liquid assets on hand.

Since MS were involved in the monoploy court cases and Apple/MAC were one of the viable opposition companies thta they were citing as evidence that they did not control the market, Billy boy made a personal loan from Bill Gates to the Apple/MAC to help them through the situation.

There is no legal connection with MS about the money. Since then MS and Apple have worked on a few profitable joint ventures with software.

Collapse -

Sherman turn on the Way-Back Machine'

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Why only Windows?

Back when computers were either a Commodore 64 (64KB RAM), a Tandy Z80 or millions of dollars from IBM etc.

The 'mini-computer' came out, several companies made them, ikncluding Apple and Mackintosh. All used their own harwdare and software, no compatibility. They were very thoroughly tested as the main targets were large educational institutions and govt depts for research and academic work. They an alternative to the multi-million dollar computer systems provided you did NOT have loads of data to enter and process, relatively cheap at around $50,000 each for hardware and software. Most people thought total sales would be under 100,000 units world wide.

Then in IBM entered the market with Bill Gates' operating system. IBM made the design architecture and circuit diagrams of the 'personal computer' public and anyone could use it by paying them US$1 per unit made.

Then the design/development costs for this field was in the millions. Now anyone could enter the market on a shoe string and they did. IBM-Clones appeared overnight. But the software was still from companies thinking in a few thousand copies to retrieve all expenses and demanding that their software and systems be perfect prior to release. Software cost about $5,000 to $10,000 each. Then Bill Gates put less perfect software out at about $100 each and designed specificly for the IBM/IBM-clone machine. Bill got a bigger market than the rest.

Apple and Mackintosh merged to stay viable. Their product is better designed and better tested but is still more expensive and is regarded as a scientific or academic level machine. But how often is the accuracy to twenty decimal places more important than the cost?

Collapse -

Apple and Mac Merge?

by generalist In reply to Sherman turn on the Way-B ...

I thought that Macintosh was a product that Apple produced as a step up from the Apple II based product line?

Collapse -

by tbragsda In reply to Apple and Mac Merge?

Way off,

Apple made the MAC. Steve Jobs, and team (Bill G helped a bit too). Steve got lost from Xerox, but it was a pure Apple product.

Collapse -

by tbragsda In reply to

lost should = lots. Sorry

Related Discussions

Related Forums