If you need support for software that is Windows only, then by all means feel free to buy a Windows machine. My iBook has (purchased) copies of Microsoft Office, Canvas, and Carrara which all run native OSX and work just fine, thanks. Most of the Windows-only software that I can think of for which there is no Mac version or comparable software are games and and custom corporate software written using using Visual Basic. In the case of the latter, if performance is not a major concern, there is always Virtual PC that lets you run Windows XP in a window. And if I want a game machine, I'll buy that Playstation 2 that I've had my eye on.
SSSSLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW machines and OS,
I haven't noticed. When was the last time you used a Mac? If you are talking about the TiBook running Virtual PC, well a program running under Windows running under emulation under Mac OSX clearly isn't going to be as fast as the same software on a Windows machine.
and creates file sharing issues.
I've only noticed one file sharing issue between Microsoft Office for the Mac and Windows and it is so obscure that I doubt most normal users would ever run into it and the problem was easily corrected on the Windows end. AppleWorks has a passable ability to read from and write to Word format. But if you really want to be Office compatible, using Office for the Mac is the way to go, of course.
Believe me, I wanted to like the Mac and OSX and seriously (and I really mean very seriously) considered getting a TiBook and running VPC to run my Windows only apps (which I have several of). That machine is a borderline JOKE!
I wouldn't buy a TiBook, personally. But that's hardly the only computer Apple produces. They iBooks are incredibly good values and Apple has upgraded the processor to a G4 and put in 32mb graphics cards. The rest of the PowerBook line has been revamped and has been greatly improved. As for Mac OSX, 10.0 was not ready for prime time. The Finder had all sorts of performance issues. 10.1 was barely ready for prime time. 10.2 and 10.3 are highly usable and greatly improve the operation speed of the computer.
By all standards, that machine was slower than any Windows machine I've used in the past 2 years. The OS has issues that I could probably get used to, but would have productivity problems in the first place.
That machine was not the best Apple had to offer. They no longer make it. Look at the current models. But if you want a Windows machine and are concerned about the performance of Windows software, then buy a Windows machine.
Finally, the price of a TiBook configured similarly to the ThinkPad I bought was darn near a thousand dollars more.
Take a look at the price of the current 12" iBook. Or the 14" iBook or 12" or 15" PowerBook, for that matter. I've been looking for a PC laptop on and off for about a year and I've yet to see anything from Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Fujitsu, or IBM that is as good of a quality and value proposition as an iBook.
Add lousy Apple service (you can't get home repair like I did with IBM) that nobody other than Mac trolls think is any good, and you have a very inferior experience.
If you want to recommend and IBM, then recommend and IBM. How much did you pay for that home repair service?
The IDEA behind the Mac/OSX is sound. The application is very poor.
You are judging the application from, I would guess, OSX 10.0. Should I judge the quality of Windows based on Windows 98 or ME?
Apple could rule the world if 1)they would lower their hardward prices;
They have. You can get an eMac from MacMall (a special) for under $800 with 17" flat panel displays, a huge selection of I/O ports, and a DVD-CDRW drive. You can get one for under $700 if you just want a CDR and don't mind a slower processor. iBooks start at under $1,100 and really can get 4-6 hours out of their battery on one charge, also with a DVD-CDRW drive. Price compare with an IBM or Dell with the same features and tell me how much they cost.
2)They would quit making false and misleading claims (file compatability);
What claims are those? Yes, the AppleWorks translators are usable but not perfect for complex documents. Of course I've historically seen similar horror stories with Microsoft Works so I hardly find that surprising. Microsoft Office v.X for the Mac, on the other hand, is essentially a perfect workalike and every other application that I've seen that has a Mac and PC version has no trouble transferring files between the two. What, specifically, was you file compatibility problem?
3)They would accept that after a dozen years of Windows, there are millions of folks that like the way it works and don't appreciate Mac Nazis lying and saying it is technically inferior; and
If you are going to judge Apple for all eternity based on a laptop that is no longer being made and a first version of a new OS that was admittedly not ready for prime time, why can't we keep bashing Windows for the flaws of Windows 95, 98, and ME?
Of course the real reason why "Mac Nazis" come out of the woodwork is because we get sick of hearing Windows victims complaining about how awful their experience is. If you love Windows and have no problems, then great! Use it. Kiss a picture of Bill Gates before you go to sleep every night if that's what floats your boat. But if you are finding your Windows experience to be a nightmare as every one of these threads seems to indicate that some people do, perhaps they should try something else.
If you want Windows, get a Windows machine. End of story. If you are unhappy with Windows, why shouldn't you try something else, especially when so many Mac users don't seem to be unhappy with their experience?
4)start marketing the product as a serious business machine and not just a pop culture icon.
Apparently you've missed Xserve and the Xserve RAID array. They are essentially FreeBSD servers plus.
People like me get turned off by the later.
It is silly to buy a machine only because of marketing. It is also silly to not buy a machine only because of marketing. At least pick a good reason not to buy a Mac -- like Al Gore's presence on the Board of Directors.
This afternoon when I was using an Ipod. It's still slow as hell. It boots about 5 times slower than my Thinkpad. These are supposedly fast G4 chips.
If you are talking about the TiBook running Virtual PC, well a program running under Windows running under emulation under Mac OSX clearly isn't going to be as fast as the same software on a Windows machine.
Not only is it not as fast, it isn't even close. But even that's not what I am referring to. How long does it take your machine to boot?
I've only noticed one file sharing issue
The file sharing issues may not be as big a problem now as they used to be. Apple used to run ads saying something like, "you can run your PC files on the Mac." Well, that assumed you had the exact same Mac software as Windows. I never could open Lotus 123, WordPerfect, or any presentation software files written on the PC on a Mac. Granted, we are talking a while ago, but my point was the advertising was terribly misleading.
They iBooks are incredibly good values and Apple has upgraded the processor to a G4 and put in 32mb graphics cards.
They hadn't done that when I was looking. And I spent a few minutes playing around with an iBook. I decided the Tibook was too slow, so there was no reason to get a slower chip.
10.2 and 10.3 are highly usable and greatly improve the operation speed of the computer.
Whatever the version on the CompUSA machines I looked at today (and I think, but am not sure, that these were G5s) are still not as fast as the machines I'm used to. This business about being a "supercomputer" is just stupid. There are speed advantages of the G(x) in certain programs (either vector or raster, I don't remember which), and that's great if that's what you work in all day. But today alone, I've been in Word, Corel Draw, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Outlook, Notepad, Tetris, and my Legal Accounting/Timekeeping stuff, and obviously IE. I don't think any of these programs natively written for the G(x) or OSX 10.x would show any performance enhancements for the Mac over the 2.4 Pentium IV I built. But the G(x) sure would have cost a lot more.
Take a look at the price of the current 12" iBook. Or the 14" iBook or 12" or 15" PowerBook, for that matter. I've been looking for a PC laptop on and off for about a year and I've yet to see anything from Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Fujitsu, or IBM that is as good of a quality and value proposition as an iBook.
I paid $1800 for my TP. It is a 2.0/512/40 with a 15 inch screen. That included the price for the 3 year at home (don't remember specific cost of that offhand). As of today, the 14" ibook 933 similarly configured (with 640 Ram) but with only 2 years of send in is $1700. I wouldn't consider that machine the quality of mine.
Should I judge the quality of Windows based on Windows 98 or ME?
Read above. I don't think I EVER looked at 10.0. It was at least 10.1. And besides, Mac users have always thought everyone in the Windows world still runs 95, or the earliest version of 98. Every comparison I saw regarding the Mac OS compared it to earlier versions of Windows on issues of speed and stability. When I told them that there was no way the Mac OS was anything close to Windows NT stability wise, they always responded, "well, I was talking about 95." I used 95 for maybe 4 months and have used NT, 2000, and XP exclusively since then.
I've always said, let your scoreboard do the talking, but I've always been very distressed at the outright dishonestly by Mac trolls. I guarantee you there are a lot of folks out there who get turned off by that and refuse to buy Apple products.
You can get an eMac from MacMall (a special) for under $800 with 17" flat panel displays, a huge selection of I/O ports, and a DVD-CDRW drive.
It comes with 128 meg of RAM (though free RAM is available with an installation cost of $40 for a total of 384), and this is a single unit that can't be upgraded. I can pull the Pentium chip out of my 1.7 desktop and replace it with a 2.4 easily. You can't do that with a Mac, and that's really what I was referring to. Besides, you can get all this from Dell for at least $150 cheaper, and it will be faster and they will have better service.
iBooks start at under $1,100 and really can get 4-6 hours out of their battery on one charge, also with a DVD-CDRW drive.
Dell notebooks start at $799, so by the time you get $300 more, you have a pretty nice notebook. I will admit IBM is a little higher, but they will negotiate. I called them and talked them down between $250-400 or so. Will Apple negotiate?
What claims are those?
See above.
If you are going to judge Apple for all eternity based on a laptop that is no longer being made
First, they still make the laptop I looked at. They've put a higher megahertz chip in there, but its still the same. Second, I have been buying Apple products since I was 16 years old. This latest issue is only one in a string of issues I've had with them.
and a first version of a new OS that was admittedly not ready for prime time, why can't we keep bashing Windows for the flaws of Windows 95, 98, and ME?
First, you made the erroneous assumption I was looking at an early version of OSX, and second, I bash Microsoft repeatedly. I'd love to get rid of MS stuff completely. I hate that company. Why in the hell do you think I was looking at Apple in the first place? Office XP didn't fix the Word bugs that have been present since prior to 97, and Office 97, IMO, is just as good workability wise with fewer annoying features as XP.
You want me to bash Microsoft? Dude, sit back and grab a cup of coffee and listen to me unleash. This is the perfect example of why I don't think Apple is that great of a company and why I detest Mac true believers: you always think that even if an Apple product is bad, as long as someone else's is worse, then you've vindicated yourself in telling others they are idiots for not buying Apple products. All of Microsofts failings don't mean that Apple products are any good.
we get sick of hearing Windows victims complaining about how awful their experience is.
This is the problem: buy my product because the other product sucks. Never mind that mine might suck as well, just in different ways or not as bad.
Apparently you've missed Xserve and the Xserve RAID array. They are essentially FreeBSD servers plus.
First, you're talking servers, not desktop where the vast majority of the real work gets done. Second, I haven't missed anything. If I wanted Unix based equipment, I could have started using Linux (seems like) decades ago. Third, except for music and artistic professions, the Mac is not marketed toward the professional, but the popular culture nut. This is why Apple works so hard to get their machines on movies and TV shows. Real computer gurus aren't going to buy a product because they saw it used on "24."
It is silly to buy a machine only because of marketing.
It's even stupider to buy a machine because it looks "beautiful." Yet if you read some promos on Apple's and other websites that discuss the Mac, you can't miss something like this.
It is also silly to not buy a machine only because of marketing. At least pick a good reason not to buy a Mac -- like Al Gore's presence on the Board of Directors.
Marketing has nothing to do with why I didn't buy the machine. I'll probably purchase an Ipod before the end of the year because I think that's a pretty decent product. Overpriced, but decent. The marketing style issues I've brought up speak only to why I always hesitate to do business with Apple.
I've bought some pretty sh*tty Apple products over the years from a Newton to a Performa. At least I suckered someone into paying me $75 for the Newton. I had a hell of a time just giving away the Performa. Yet I sold two other used laptaps that, like the Performa, had serious upgrade limitations and got some money out of them.