6 replies
by djent
by thechas
Apple has found itself a niche in providing 'cute' limited function computers to users who are intimidated by a standard PC.
Or, who want something 'different'.
Now, I admit that there are applications, especially in graphics arts where the MAC (not the IMac) and it's software are leaps and bounds ahead of the PC.
For broad range functionality, you just can't beat the Intel / IBM platform PC.
More hardware.
More software.
Lower prices. (from volume)
I look at the Apple vs. Windows issue as the same as Beta-max vs. VHS.
Beta had superior image quality.
VHS locked in the content and concentrated on low cost high volume equipment.
The battle didn't go to the better format, the battle went to the best planning and marketing.
If Sony had been more open with hardware licensing, we might be using Beta instead of VHS today.
Same for Apple. By controlling the hardware manufacturing so tightly, Apple has actually prevented their technology from having a chance to capturethe mass market.
Chas
by srjohnson
I would call functionality the ability to do my regular
tasks (basic word processing, spreadsheets, web
browsing, email, telnet, ssh) without having to reboot
my computer a couple of times a day or reinstall apps
or even the OS every few months. Something I get only
with my non- MS Windows based computers; Mac OS
X, Linux, NEXTSTEP.
I like supporting quality products, I don't eat McDonald's
hamburgers... maybe I should try using Beta-Max, too...
:-)
by djent
How can you say the MACs were "user unfriendly"? They were specifically targeted at Ludites (artists, etc.) who were either incapable or unwilling to learn how to use a real PC. The same goes for the Windows XP GUI.
Ralph
by jardinier
As there has been minimal response to this discussion, I hereby declare it to be officially
dead.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Trending Community archive posts
Sort by Trending