Apple's new iMac

[November Adam]

Companies with that much in the bank can nose dive fast. Just ask Nortel. Different company, but it is possible.

[Asher]

I don't see Apple going away any time soon, but I also don't see them taking any significant marketshare from the Wintel crowd.

However their worldwide marketshare is actually slipping, too. It's less than 3% now, down from 5.2% five years ago.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well Mac zealots buy Mac's but other people but Wintel...

Actually what are Mac's advantages?

Better design, stability, photoshop?

Disadvantages -

Poor performance (high price), less software for the platform.

If some PC manufacturesrs decided to copy Macs design, and install Win 2000 on it. Mac will become a platform for graphic design.



Steve Jobs better do something about performance and emulatiuon of Windows on MAC Os other than that the evil empire will just run over the little jedi.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'd prefer a G5 PowerMac, but I just can't afford that right now so the iMac seems like my best option. Unless one of you guys wants to sell me a Dell.... come on Steve... uh I meant Asher.

I just got that joke now.
Wall Street Journal has an article about "Stephen" selling those Dells.

"I would chose a Dell over a Gateway because Steven is cuter than Gateway's cow," says Libby Marie LeForce, a 17-year-old student from Chandler, Ariz.

[Asher]

dp

[Giancarlo]

Quoting from the article:

But Apple's annual revenues have dropped from $8 billion to less than $6 billion, and the company continues to lose market share to the Microsoft-Intel-dominated world. A little more than 4% of new PCs sold in the U.S. are Macs.

Their revenues are falling faster than ever. Wiglaf eat that.

[Juggernaut]

Mac will always dominate the graphic design business. I just can't see anyone making graphics with a PC. The mere uglyness of Windows detoriates your performance subconsciously.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
Mac will always dominate the graphic design business. I just can't see anyone making graphics with a PC. The mere uglyness of Windows detoriates your performance subconsciously.

3D graphics are no longer Mac dominant.

2D web graphics are still pretty popular on the Mac, but only because Adobe seems to intentionally not optimized the x86 version as well as the PPC version. By all accounts, the software could be much faster on modern PC hardware than it is on Macs (as they are in some Photoshop uses). The other photoshop uses has the Macs ahead. Clearly optimization issues only.

As for the mere ugliness of Windows: You obviously have no idea how Windows XP's UI works. There are built in skins out there that customize everything to meet your specific needs. It's only ugly if you want it to be.

Although Aqua is getting REALLY bad reviews from even hardcore Mac users. After the flashiness wears off it really starts annoying people with how sluggish it is and whatnot.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
I think the largest reason is Apple loves to have supreme control over the hardware and the software. Moving over to the PC basically removes all control you had over your hardware. Costs become cheaper, there's tons of suppliers, not just Apple. They're sticking with PowerPC instead of x86 because they enjoy being different, and their whole business model depends on them being different.

I agree that this is the number one reason you won't see Mac OS on the PC. I would've mentioned it, but korn's question was about Intel and AMD chips in Apple computers, not Mac OS on PC's. Apple could put Intel and AMD chips in their computers and still maintain control over the hardware (theoretically) by refusing to license Mac OS to Dell, Gateway, Etc. Porting Mac OS over to PC's, however, would probably destroy Apple's hardware division, something Steve Jobs would never allow. Mac OS will never be on PC's because keeping it limited to Apple computers is in both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates interest. Steve Jobs wants to sell more computers. Bill Gates wants to have a small, non-effectual competitor. Right now, both of them are getting what they wanted.

And I'm glad you finally got that joke, Steve...

edit: I still like Aqua and I've been using it for almost a year now. It is a bit more sluggish that OS 9, but so is everything else. I like the look of Aqua enough to put up with the occasional sluggishness (which is rare).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I would've mentioned it, but korn's question was about Intel and AMD chips in Apple computers, not Mac OS on PC's. Apple could put Intel and AMD chips in their computers and still maintain control over the hardware (theoretically) by refusing to license Mac OS to Dell, Gateway, Etc.

That's essentially the same thing as making it for all PCs. There's nothing that stops non-Apple x86 computers from running it. If people actually did like it over Windows, they'd get their friends with the OEM computers shipped with MacOS to burn them a copy, and they'd install it also.

There's no way you can restrict how you distribute software on the PC.

Porting Mac OS over to PC's, however, would probably destroy Apple's hardware division, something Steve Jobs would never allow. Mac OS will never be on PC's because keeping it limited to Apple computers is in both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates interest. Steve Jobs wants to sell more computers. Bill Gates wants to have a small, non-effectual competitor. Right now, both of them are getting what they wanted.

Exactly.

And I'm glad you finally got that joke, Steve...

Dude, you should have asked for a Dell.

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by Asher

2D web graphics are still pretty popular on the Mac, but only because Adobe seems to intentionally not optimized the x86 version as well as the PPC version. By all accounts, the software could be much faster on modern PC hardware than it is on Macs (as they are in some Photoshop uses). The other photoshop uses has the Macs ahead. Clearly optimization issues only.

2D web graphics are very popular on the Mac because AD:s generally don't like PC. The PC is too hacker for an AD. AD:s are elitists. If you visit a 2D-making ad bureau you'll notice everyone got Macs except maybe the pony-tailed service technician in the basement, who has built his own PC.

As for the mere ugliness of Windows: You obviously have no idea how Windows XP's UI works. There are built in skins out there that customize everything to meet your specific needs. It's only ugly if you want it to be.

My friends got XP (which by the way works disastrous), and from what I've seen the default interface looks like yet a tragic effort to make "hip" design. The look brings one's thoughts to a kindergarden. Maybe there's a mind-blasting customization device if you dig deeply enough into the preferences. Who knows. All I can say is: if Apple keeps making products like before, it will never change.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
My friends got XP (which by the way works disastrous), and from what I've seen the default interface looks like yet a tragic effort to make "hip" design.

It's almost amusing that the same phrase is commonly used to describe Aqua.

Maybe there's a mind-blasting customization device if you dig deeply enough into the preferences.

Indeed there is, it's called StyleBuilder. I'm using a modified theme myself, couldn't stand the default XP blueish one. The best default XP theme is 'Silver', not 'Blue' (the one that's turned on first). I don't like the round look of everything, so my theme has a very angular look, and silver/grey look overall.

I'm glad your friend's experience with XP was "disastrous", because he's in the distinct minority, then.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
My friends got XP (which by the way works disastrous), and from what I've seen the default interface looks like yet a tragic effort to make "hip" design.

It's almost amusing that the same phrase is commonly used to describe Aqua.

Maybe there's a mind-blasting customization device if you dig deeply enough into the preferences.

Indeed there is, it's called StyleBuilder. I'm using a modified theme myself, couldn't stand the default XP blueish one. The best default XP theme is 'Silver', not 'Blue' (the one that's turned on first). I don't like the round look of everything, so my theme has a very angular look, and silver/grey look overall.

I'm glad your friend's experience with XP was "disastrous", because he's in the distinct minority, then.

[Juggernaut]

Giving it a thought it's no wonder Microsoft always has been a little behind on UI, now who created the whole windows-based UI and sold it to Gates?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
Giving it a thought it's no wonder Microsoft always has been a little behind on UI, now who created the whole windows-based UI and sold it to Gates?

No one sold it to Gates, per se.
Both Apple and Microsoft got it from Xerox. Same with the concept of the "file system".

Apple's not very innovative, they're just "edgy". They'll take other people's innovations and push them to market before most people are ready for them, then their followers praise them as Gods of innovation.