Mac users' elitism

Jet said:
Fair enough, I didn't know it had changed. The rest of the points apply though. Most users won't want to give up the support/won't even know it exists.

Incidentally, if PowerDVD is bundled with a PC it will be a stripped down version. Lacking sound options as fair as i know. You have to pay to get the full version.
Click to expand...
Correct it would be the two channel version as opposed to 5.1 or better :)
 
Pho said:
1. Yes (but Windows is by far easier to infect)
2. Yes (nothings perfect)
3. No (see above :))
Click to expand...
Windows is easier to infect because their are far more Windows users that a virus can propagate amongst. Apart from that there's no other reason to say OSX is more secure. Technically speaking it is less secure.

Windows XP costs £175
Click to expand...
:confused: You can buy it for ~£70.

Cogent said:
<snipped load of rubbish>
Click to expand...
Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to this thread?
 
Al Vallario said:
Windows XP Home Retail: £175
Mac OS X Retail: £80
Click to expand...

Your forgetting you need a mac for mac osx......

its against the eula to install it on a normal pc, hence putting osx on normal pc's is banned from this forum.
 
NathanE said:
Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to this thread?
Click to expand...


well if you read the whole thread you would have seen that infact i did quite early on

macos is great i use xp too have for years .... they are both good... mac os is better! so there :p
 
Al Vallario said:
Windows XP Home Retail: £175
Mac OS X Retail: £80
Click to expand...
Who in the right state of mind would buy Retail though? Only some schmuck that walks into a highstreet shop would. Or maybe some enthusiast that relies on technology media and FUD posted on forums such as this one to tell him what the EULA says regarding activations?

Still, comparing the price difference between retail. Looks good to me. OSX can run, well, not much. Windows can run, like, an entire planet's software and games. Good value for money if you ask me.
 
NathanE said:
Who in the right state of mind would buy Retail though? Only some schmuck that walks into a highstreet shop would. Or maybe some enthusiast that relies on technology media and FUD posted on forums such as this one to tell him what the EULA says regarding activations?
Click to expand...
Whilst I'm aware nobody purchases Windows XP Retail versions, would you not agree that it would be unfair to compare the prices of an OEM copy of Windows XP to a full retail version of OS X?

There is, for obvious reasons, no OEM version of OS X.
 
Al Vallario said:
Whilst I'm aware nobody purchases Windows XP Retail versions, would you not agree that it would be unfair to compare the prices of an OEM copy of Windows XP to a full retail version of OS X?

There is, for obvious reasons, no OEM version of OS X.
Click to expand...
Of course I agree, I even agreed before you posted this. You seem to have cut off the part of my post that implied I accepted that comparing equal versions was the correct thing to do. I even explained Microsoft's reasoning for charging more than Apple does.
 
Instead of saying 'blah blah is better than the other' maybe we should be saying for what purpose? Home users (even then theres the question if it's for a media centre, internet browsing etc), photography, video editing, porn.
 
NathanE said:
Who in the right state of mind would buy Retail though? Only some schmuck that walks into a highstreet shop would. Or maybe some enthusiast that relies on technology media and FUD posted on forums such as this one to tell him what the EULA says regarding activations?

Still, comparing the price difference between retail. Looks good to me. OSX can run, well, not much. Windows can run, like, an entire planet's software and games. Good value for money if you ask me.
Click to expand...

What OSX and Windows can and can't run has nothing to do with their prices. That fact that more third parties produce stuff for Microsoft makes it fair for Microsoft to charge more? That's hardly fair.

The third parties produce the software because they can reach more customers, not because Windows is so well built.
 
Jet said:
What OSX and Windows can and can't run has nothing to do with their prices. That fact that more third parties produce stuff for Microsoft makes it fair for Microsoft to charge more? That's hardly fair.
Click to expand...
That is of course your opinion and nothing else.

I'll try to help you understand why I believe you are wrong:

Apple iPods... why do they cost more than other makes? Because they are the best and have the largest ecosystem.

Jet said:
The third parties produce the software because they can reach more customers, not because Windows is so well built.
Click to expand...
What does the build quality of Windows have to do with this? :confused: A minute ago we were talking about prices. You are correct however, third parties simply target the largest ecosystem. Snowball effect.
 
Concorde Rules said:
Quicktime can go into full screen mode without buying it :confused:
Click to expand...
It can fit to the size of the screen (with all the controls visible and space to the top or bottom if the aspect ratio is not correct), but not full screen.
 
Concorde Rules said:
Quicktime can go into full screen mode without buying it :confused:
Click to expand...

You can expand it by pressing the green button to fill the screen, but not full screen so you can't see the desktop, only Pro which have to pay for allows full screen mode
 
Im a recent Mac owner although I have used Macs for a while on a professional basis and an ADC member through work.

The main selling points for me are the build quality and warranties of the hardware itself, and on the software side it is the only environment where there is a real marriage of Windows-esque professional software suites, multimedia capabilities and UNIX-based development and software environments.
 
NathanE said:
That is of course your opinion and nothing else.

I'll try to help you understand why I believe you are wrong:

Apple iPods... why do they cost more than other makes? Because they are the best and have the largest ecosystem.


What does the build quality of Windows have to do with this? :confused: A minute ago we were talking about prices. You are correct however, third parties simply target the largest ecosystem. Snowball effect.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you don't understand :confused:

You said that it was ok for Microsoft to charge more because more programs and games run on it. What has this got to do with Microsoft? The third parties decide whether to build a program/game for Windows. Why should Microsoft charge more because GTA is only available on Windows. What has that got to do with Microsoft?

OSX has more value because you get more stuff with it. You can't charge more because of what third parties do with their time.

Apple charge more for iPods because they can. If anything iPods should be less because they support less formats and have less functions. Apple charge more for iPods because everyone wants one and they look good.

Microsoft is similar. They charge a lot because they know people will have to buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom