PowerBook is dead; MacBook Pro is here (Intel-based)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
Well, I'd say the difference between running a virus-free, spyware/etc-free PC, vs. running the same with a Mac, is that I don't have to bother with Windows AntiSpyWare, or Norton AntiVirus, or SpyBot, or Adaware - all programs I had to use far to frequently, since I shared a computer with people not so uber l33t as, say, you

Those programs are all automated, they don't require much in the way of user interaction. Further, if and when MacOS X gets more popular, you're going to need similar programs yourself.

To state whether or not an OS is well-designed, or easy to use, doesn't require an OS design class, so stop the BS. Unless you are ready to shut your mouth about how well designed cars are, or a house.

Actually, it does. If you don't understand how the OS works, how can you say if it is well-designed or not? MacOS X has had more security vulnerabilities than Windows XP recently. Its user interface is less consistent and largely less functional, its kernel is ancient, its file management painful.

You and Aggie are basing your "well-designed" argument probably based on the fact tht Windows has viruses, spyware, etc. But that is a function of its popularity, as MacOS X has many vulnerabilities of its own...they're just not being exploited because their marketshare is insignificant.

Going by your car example again, you're basically looking at, say, Toyota's vehicle crash numbers and comparing them to Lada's crash numbers. And because Toyota has more accidents, you're saying they're not well-designed...

Yes, but you see, the majority of those people aren't choosing Windows XP; they are choosing the cheap, 200$ Dell or whatever computer, which happens to come with Windows, that they will take home and then complain about viruses and bla bla bla.

I guarantee you if Dell sold PCs with MacOS X and PCs with Windows, Windows would still hugely outsell MacOS X. That's a bunk argument on your part.

[Fake Boris]

Aggie, do you honestly think that you evaluate a company's size by looking at its market cap?

[Fake Boris]

These MacBooks are hot as hell though. I'll sell my iBook and get one as soon as I have some cash for it.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

Those programs are all automated, they don't require much in the way of user interaction. Further, if and when MacOS X gets more popular, you're going to need similar programs yourself.

...

You and Aggie are basing your "well-designed" argument probably based on the fact tht Windows has viruses, spyware, etc. But that is a function of its popularity, as MacOS X has many vulnerabilities of its own...they're just not being exploited because their marketshare is insignificant.

...

I guarantee you if Dell sold PCs with MacOS X and PCs with Windows, Windows would still hugely outsell MacOS X. That's a bunk argument on your part.

First off, I've already acknowledged that the small market share that Apple has contributes to the non-existent number of viruses that target it, and I said that I'd prefer for OS X not to gain too much ground.

Secondly, you are probably right, people would probably stick with Windows. This has to do with misconceptions, though, regarding the incompatibility between Windows and OS X, etc. And the fact that a lot of people simply don't care to take the time to educate themselves on how to use a computer in the first place.

Anyway, I'm fine with the status quo as it is; I don't miss out on any programs by using a Mac, that I need or would use...really there's been no negative to my switch (of course, this would probably be a very different story if I was, say, an Engineering major or something similarly boring).

[Gatekeeper]

So ... who's going to be the guinea pig in this thread and buy from the first batch of Intel-powered Macintosh computers?

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Aggie, do you honestly think that you evaluate a company's size by looking at its market cap?

No. It's market value. I was being loose with language. In a capitalist society the worth of a company is what people are prepared to pay to own it.

In amusing news today Apple is now worth more than Dell. I imagine that Jobs will send Michael Dell a revenge email.

[Agathon]

We don't let people drive without cars. Why let them on the internet without some basic training? You know, the "Don't take candy from strangers" bit, the "Look at the page before putting in personal data" bit, and so on?

It's a good idea to have an inspector come out to your house before you buy it, and it's a good idea to have people come to your house for termite prevention and other such maintenance. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a geek come to your house and set up the security systems properly?

Or you could just build a safer car.

As more and more of our lives goes online, so does the need for a digital Ralph Nader increase.

[Agathon]

Yes, and the majority of people buying a Mac these days aren't doing it to avoid the maintenance; they're doing it because they want to join an elite club.

The majority of recent switchers I know did it because they loved their iPod and decided to look at Apple's computers.

If I had a dollar for every person who's recently said to me: "I can't believe I used Windows for so long", I could afford some of Apple's stock.

[Asher]

Or you could just build a safer car.

Neither MacOS X or Linux are safer than Windows by design, really. Some features, such as being a restricted user by default, are. And they're good features.

But the actual design of the OS' software...

In fact, it's been many years since the actual Windows kernel had a vulnerability. Linux has many, and MacOS X's has had a few in the same time period.

As I said, you are not qualified to judge which is better designed. Looking at what is exploited most has nothing to do with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, and AOL was "worth more" than Time Warner according to its stock market value. We all see how well that worked out, right?

The value of stocks really is a poor way to measure to actual worth of a company.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
So ... who's going to be the guinea pig in this thread and buy from the first batch of Intel-powered Macintosh computers?

Gatekeeper

Not me.

I bought a Powerbook last year. I wanted to get in before the Intel transition so that I will have a computer that will run all my old software at reasonable speed. It will last me as a portable for another 4 years or so.

I'll probably buy the wife an iMac Core Duo later this year, or maybe cheap out on a Mac Mini when they get Intelled.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, and AOL was "worth more" than Time Warner according to its stock market value. We all see how well that worked out, right?

The value of stocks really is a poor way to measure to actual worth of a company.

You obviously hate capitalism Imran. Perhaps you should consider Marxism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I actually understand capitalism, unlike yourself. I wonder how many times Asher has to say P/E values before it finally sinks in .

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I actually understand capitalism, unlike yourself. I wonder how many times Asher has to say P/E values before it finally sinks in .

Because it is irrelevant. Part of the value of a company is future expectations - often expectations about which we have little concrete information. That is why Apple's stock has been going up and up. If you want to say that these don't count as part of the value of a firm, then you have to be consistent and apply it across the board... which would be absurd.

In capitalism the value of a commodity is the price people are willing to pay for it. You might think that they shouldn't pay that much for it, or they should pay more, but that is the price.

Of course if you want to look at alternatives to the market, please join the CPA or some other affiliated organization.

[Asher]

Agathon, Apple's stock is high because of the hype factor. You rename this "future expectations".

I'll tell you this -- Apple's stock (and Google's stock) are way too high to reliably meet their expectations. They will crash, just like the dot-coms did, and just like AOL's did.

When we get people like you investing, it's what causes the markets to crash so spectacularly. You don't actually understand what you are investing in, or the market you're investing in.