new macs

Den · Jun 23, 2012, 14:51:35

Linda wanted a iPad as she did not fancy a laptop. It is the most under used toy in the house as I would rather use my PC any day. If I won the lotto and stopped working I would most likely buy a Mac just because I could and would no doubt enjoy the learning curve. Until then I will stick with Microsoft as it does everything I want it to do and more. I can understand why people enjoy Mac's as they seem a good machine (although I don't like the thought of everything built into the monitor) but I do object to the way Apple run their company by comparison to Microsoft, but each to their own and live and let live.

Gary · Jun 23, 2012, 17:08:43

Quote from: Den on Jun 23, 2012, 14:51:35
but I do object to the way Apple run their company by comparison to Microsoft

Disguising your dislike about Apple though a thinly veiled post about ipads is still unfair on the Mac board. I'm sure if someone posted something similar about Microsoft on the MS board you would not like it, so why do it here?

Lance · Jun 23, 2012, 18:27:39

I'm sorry Gary, but I feel you've gone searching for that. It was a reasonably balanced post. If Den's post was purely the bit you quoted then obviously it could be seen as trying to be argumentative.

Simon · Jun 23, 2012, 18:30:59

I don't honestly see how the way each company is run is really relevant to the products that you buy. It would be cutting one's nose off to spite one's face to not buy an Apple product if you want one, just because you don't like the way the company is managed. Also, I'm sure Apple and Microsoft are really not all that far apart.

Den · Jun 23, 2012, 22:07:59

Whenever I have used a Apple Mac I have liked what I have seen.

My point about the way Apple is run is the fact that they charge over the top for the product which is not that far removed from a PC. I always get cross when some one points out that MS should not include IE as part of the operating system but it's OK for Apple with their browser.

My other point concerning the iPad is that it I don't really find it that good but then again I am not a fan of Android either. I suppose I enjoy sitting in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse so at the moment Windows 8 is not ringing any bells with me.

Garry, I have two ipods (touch and classic) and prefer the classic so that says something about me and the fact that I prefer the non touch version.

Tacitus · Jun 24, 2012, 06:59:33

Quote from: Den on Jun 23, 2012, 22:07:59
My point about the way Apple is run is the fact that they charge over the top for the product which is not that far removed from a PC.

They charge what people are prepared to pay same as any other business. What you seemed to be saying is that this is poor business practice.

Quote from: Den on Jun 23, 2012, 22:07:59
I always get cross when some one points out that MS should not include IE as part of the operating system but it's OK for Apple with their browser.

Safari is not 'part of the operating system' - AFAIK you can throw it in the bin. Certainly you can use any browser you like. At the time of the IE complaint, it was included as part of the operating system and, was embedded within it in order to exclude all other browsers. That is what I would call unethical but at the time it was par for the course for MS.

Technical Ben · Jun 24, 2012, 09:14:30

Nah, the reason for MS to have the problem was they were almost a total monopoly. Apple had too small a share to be a worry. Now they are big enough there are two options. Make both open up the OS to other parties. Or as the looks of Windows 8 suggests, use the excuse "It's no longer a monopoly, it's a duopoly (Apple V MS). People can just swap PC/OS for a new internet browser."

Den · Jun 24, 2012, 10:10:10

I always look on in wonder when I visit a Apple store to see so many people inside, this never happens in a PC store. When my old ipod stpped working I thought I would take it with me when I visited Liverpool as it was a battery change and it's not a good idea to change it yourself. When I got there I was told I needed a appointment and could have one in about 4 days.

As I had traveled about 40miles I thought this was a bit off and decided to take up the offer of the part exchange that they came up with. So I stood there and waited for the Genius Person to arrive and wondered why everyone else had technicians but Apple required a Genius. I decided to buy the iPod touch and took it home and within a month bought a Classic version as well as it hard a much larger memory and suited my needs much better.
In summing up I have three Apple products and three MS products but the MS products get used the most, but only because my needs are for business and to play on.

Tacitus · Jun 24, 2012, 11:00:42

Quote from: Technical Ben on Jun 24, 2012, 09:14:30
Nah, the reason for MS to have the problem was they were almost a total monopoly.

True but it doesn't alter the fact that IE was embedded in the OS and Safari isn't. It may be bundled with the OS but that's not the same thing since you can use any browser you wish - except IE of course.

Quote from: Technical Ben on Jun 24, 2012, 09:14:30
Make both open up the OS to other parties.

Windows already is since that is currently MS business model. I think time's probably running out on that since MS, and probably Google, are moving in to direct sales for tablets on the Apple model. Look to MS buying Nokia as their phone manufacturing division.

Tacitus · Jun 24, 2012, 11:06:41

Quote from: Den on Jun 24, 2012, 10:10:10
I always look on in wonder when I visit a Apple store to see so many people inside, this never happens in a PC store.

If you go in the Covent Garden one (assuming you can force your way in, since it's usually packed) you will see foreign tourists taking pictures of themselves inside. "Wow, this is me inside the Apple Store!!!" IOW it has become a tourist destination in itself.

Bizarre I know, but that is seriously good marketing

OTOH in the Regent Street one you can never get near the kit, since it's always being used by foreign students using Hotmail and Facebook.

Glenn · Jun 24, 2012, 12:32:55

Quote from: Tacitus on Jun 24, 2012, 11:00:42
True but it doesn't alter the fact that IE was embedded in the OS and Safari isn't. It may be bundled with the OS but that's not the same thing since you can use any browser you wish - except IE of course.

Any browser could still run on XP before they were forced to make the change, just because IE6 was embedded it didn't stop other browsers from being installed.

Den · Jun 24, 2012, 13:57:46

Can someone explain to simple me why Windows can be run on a Mac but the Mac operating system can not be run on a PC. Is it because you can't or because Apple wont let you? This is a genuine question and not Apple beating.

Glenn · Jun 24, 2012, 14:16:58

The Apple EULA forbids it, but OXS will run happily on some non Apple hardware with a little tweaking.

Den · Jun 24, 2012, 15:14:01

How can Apple forbid it and then have the cheek to run Windows?

Simon · Jun 24, 2012, 15:24:30

I'm surprised to hear that it does, Den, given Windows' propensity for viruses. I thought one of the big pulls for a Mac was that you don't need additional security. Surely running Windows on one is pretty pointless anyway?

Glenn · Jun 24, 2012, 15:51:35

Standard and Preinstalled Apple Software License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
unless you obtained the Apple Software from the Mac App Store or under a volume license, maintenance or
other written agreement from Apple, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run
one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time. For example, these
standard single-copy

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx107.pdf

Tacitus · Jun 24, 2012, 16:14:04

Quote from: Den on Jun 24, 2012, 15:14:01
How can Apple forbid it and then have the cheek to run Windows?

Not a case of 'cheek'. MS business model involved licensing the OS to the world + dog. Apple's business was always vertically integrated - they supplied the complete end product, except for a brief period when they did license the OS and nearly went bust.

In the end if you don't like the product, don't buy it.

Den · Jun 24, 2012, 17:55:59

Can't justify spending that much on a computer however good it is.

Just changed my desktop and I could have bought three for the price of a Mac. A friend of mine runs a graphic company and always used Macs but this time he has replaced them with PCs as they will do everything he wants at a fraction of the cost.
As I said before if I retired and stopped using accounts packages etc' then I would most likely (if I could still afford to) buy a Mac because I would love to start again and learn something new.

Tacitus · Jun 24, 2012, 19:18:09

Quote from: Den on Jun 24, 2012, 17:55:59
Can't justify spending that much on a computer however good it is. Just changed my desktop and I could have bought three for the price of a Mac.

If you comparre like with like you generally find Macs are much the same price. In my experience people who say Macs are expensive, generally compare the price of a new Mac with a PCWorld/Aldi special or 'build your own', in which case they will be more expensive.

Still whatever floats your boat.

Simon · Jun 24, 2012, 19:25:25

So, if you pay £1800 for a Mac, are you saying it would be a similar spec, as far as storage, processing power, etc, as an £1800 PC, Tac? If that's the case, and I'm asking, not arguing, then why is it not possible to buy a Mac for £300-400, with PC World / Aldi specs?

Tacitus · Jun 25, 2012, 02:21:20

Quote from: Simon on Jun 24, 2012, 19:25:25
So, if you pay £1800 for a Mac, are you saying it would be a similar spec, as far as storage, processing power, etc, as an £1800 PC, Tac?

Not sure why you say £1800 but any comparisons I've seen in the past have compared a new Mac with a similarly specced new HP (whatever) and although the Mac generally comes out a little dearer, they are not that far apart. I think it may be different between (say) iMacs v equivalent HP or, MacBooks v equivalent Lenovo or whatever. I imagine the 'specials;' are the result of overstocking, bankrupt stock or similar firesales.

I will grant that at present the PowerMacs are overpriced, but I don't think that applies to the iMacs which, last time I looked cost little more than Sony/HP equivalents I have seen. However since the market is always changing and I don't spend my time doing endless comparisons of which is cheaper or why, it may be that things have changed.

Simon · Jun 25, 2012, 07:09:33

Thanks, Tac. I plucked £1800 out of the air, but it is a fairly common price I've seen them advertised for. Not sure which type those were, though.

Glenn · Jun 25, 2012, 07:10:15

I just did a comparison too, I think $460 is a fair jump, apart from a 14" screen on the HP the spec is very similar.

13" Macbook Pro with i5 cpu $1189.99 http://www.macconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=14404567&cac=BrandsItem
HP 4440s with i5 cpu $729.00 http://www.macconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=14297360

Technical Ben · Jul 05, 2012, 18:09:04

The Apple branded ATI cards were 3 times the price. Could be the demand pushing it up though.

(Lol as it's an unrelated effect causing the price hike, like the tulips from Amsterdam. There is nothing wrong with tulips, but there is in dodgy sales people

).

Gary · Jul 06, 2012, 13:42:00

Quote from: Simon on Jun 25, 2012, 07:09:33
Thanks, Tac. I plucked £1800 out of the air, but it is a fairly common price I've seen them advertised for. Not sure which type those were, though.

Basic iMac £999. You can dual boot windows or use VMware etc as Macs use Intel processors, you have to pay for windows if you do. I choose not to. You can also boot in a Linux distro.