| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 56973 | 2005-04-19 23:56:00 | What Can PC Makers Learn From Apple | Safari (3993) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 346830 | 2005-04-19 23:56:00 | What Can PC Makers Learn From Apple? The PC industry would do well to take a few leaves out of Apple's book. www.pcworld.com These days Apple is generating more buzz than a swarm of African killer bees. Of course, we PC users can sit back and watch the hoopla about the Mac Mini and its brethren with detached interest, right? |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 346831 | 2005-04-20 00:13:00 | I have to disagree. Ok if you are comparing some PC package form Noel Leeming or whereever this comparison may work. But Macs are designed and sold to be stand alone packages. You do not customise them. A PC however is designed to be custom built - or amended later. Take all the different hardware components, all the different brands of those components and all the different drivers (for various O/Ss) and all the software associated with using the hardware and of course you will get glitches. Try to do the same thing to a MAc and you will find yourself with a nightmare on your hands. I like being able to customise my PC - its the same thing as hotrods. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 346832 | 2005-04-20 00:22:00 | And also in that article: If you're a cost-conscious buyer, you may find that a PC is a better deal than a Mac. And if you're shopping for peripherals or internal components, you can choose from a huge range of PC brands. Plus, PCs are perfect for tinkerers; opening the hood is usually relatively straightforward. In Mac land, most systems' cases are harder to open, and components are designed more as cohesive units than as a collection of parts. I know, looks don't make the computer. But on the other hand, where is it written that systems have to be boxy and boring? Or black and predictable? Really, if you're that concerned about "style", I'll point anyone towards www.shuttlepc.com Apple products typically work with a smaller group of peripherals and programs, so the company can quash more bugs and offer fixes in timelier fashion. That's true, but there's a downside to that as well. There's often less choice about which software you can use, sure there may be alternatives for pretty much evey user out there, but it's unsuitable for things like CAD, Architecture and 3D (Got that list from a Mac fan) How many media programs must we PC users arduously sort through before we can figure out which one will do the job easily? Again, the flipside to this is choice. I don't want a 1-size-fits-all media player, what may work extremely well on my XP box may run like a dog on my 98 one. One fully featured program for one computer, a barebones package for another. What's wrong with that? As for the shopping serenity, that's just personal preference. I found the Magnummac shop to be a hard to find, grotty little shop, and would never go there again, whereas the big Big Byte shops [were] easy to navigate. Again, that's my opinion however saying the shops are nicer dosen't really count for much in a pro-mac argument. Still, If I had the chance I would give a mac a deacent go, so I can see just what the hype over OSX is ;) |
Edward (31) | ||
| 346833 | 2005-04-20 00:27:00 | I have to disagree. Ok if you are comparing some PC package form Noel Leeming or whereever this comparison may work. But Macs are designed and sold to be stand alone packages. You do not customise them. A PC however is designed to be custom built - or amended later. Take all the different hardware components, all the different brands of those components and all the different drivers (for various O/Ss) and all the software associated with using the hardware and of course you will get glitches. Try to do the same thing to a MAc and you will find yourself with a nightmare on your hands. I like being able to customise my PC - its the same thing as hotrods. That is the point that they were making in the article. Quote PCs are perfect for tinkerers; opening the hood is usually relatively straightforward. In Mac land, most systems' cases are harder to open, and components are designed more as cohesive units than as a collection of parts. |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 346834 | 2005-04-20 00:33:00 | I have to disagree. Ok if you are comparing some PC package form Noel Leeming or whereever this comparison may work. But Macs are designed and sold to be stand alone packages. You do not customise them. A PC however is designed to be custom built - or amended later. Take all the different hardware components, all the different brands of those components and all the different drivers (for various O/Ss) and all the software associated with using the hardware and of course you will get glitches. Try to do the same thing to a MAc and you will find yourself with a nightmare on your hands. I like being able to customise my PC - its the same thing as hotrods. Ditto |
Greg (193) | ||
| 346835 | 2005-04-20 00:43:00 | easy to navigate. Again, that's my opinion however saying the shops are nicer dosen't really count for much in a pro-mac argument. The article was referring to the Apple Stores which are in several countries but there are not any in NZ at present. We only have the normal Apple retail shops. Sample here hardware.silicon.com |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 346836 | 2005-04-20 01:02:00 | I would already rank brand name comps as less then Macs, They are poorly designed unwieldy piles of junkosourus, configured with business partners in mind rather then the customer (i tell ya, I cringe when I’m working on the average HP, Dell, Packard Bell System) When comparing these with Macs then the clear advantage does go to Apple with its higher quality and bundled software, However supermarket PC's don't even come into the equation when I for one are discussing the merits of PC's, An good purchase decision will get the punter an ass kicking PC for a wicked price. Walking into a large retail store and plonking down 2 grand will get them a big steaming pile of... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 346837 | 2005-04-20 01:10:00 | It's interesting, if a bit sad, to see yet again the wrong idea that "a PC is designed to be custom built --or amended later" . Nothing of the sort . The majority of PCs are intended to be never opened or modified in any way . The vast majority of PCs are never opened in their useful life . Most PCs are used in business environments . The users would be fired if they "improved" the computer . The "Box opened" switch in many PCs is there to detect such interference) . The "open" PC architecture was a miscalculation by IBM . If they had anticipated its popularity they would have locked it down hard (as they tried --too late -- with MCA in the PS/2s) . The IBM PC was a rushed job, and there are many very bad design decisions in it because of that . But it was an attempt to cater for an unwanted customer demand with a deliberately crippled toy which would not harm IBM's base real computer business . Apple have nearly always built a complete system with a closed architecture . They have controlled the hardware so they could be absolutely confident that any add-on unit would work . Their first (external) hard disks were industry standard SCSI drives . But the Apple formatting programme was written to check the drive's internal ID . It wouldn't format a make or model of drive not approved by Apple . (Of course the users made a patch to override that test ;) ) . But that closed architecture has been Apple's strength . |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 346838 | 2005-04-20 01:14:00 | It's interesting, if a bit sad, to see yet again the wrong idea that "a PC is designed to be custom built --or amended later" . Nothing of the sort . The majority of PCs are intended to be never opened or modified in any way . The vast majority of PCs are never opened in their useful life . Most PCs are used in business environments . The users would be fired if they "improved" the computer . The "Box opened" switch in many PCs is there to detect such interference) . The "open" PC architecture was a miscalculation by IBM . If they had anticipated its popularity they would have locked it down hard (as they tried --too late -- with MCA in the PS/2s) . The IBM PC was a rushed job, and there are many very bad design decisions in it because of that . But it was an attempt to cater for an unwanted customer demand with a deliberately crippled toy which would not harm IBM's base real computer business . Apple have nearly always built a complete system with a closed architecture . They have controlled the hardware so they could be absolutely confident that any add-on unit would work . Their first (external) hard disks were industry standard SCSI drives . But the Apple formatting programme was written to check the drive's internal ID . It wouldn't format a make or model of drive not approved by Apple . (Of course the users made a patch to override that test ;) ) . But that closed architecture has been Apple's strength . Drivel . Apples closed PCs are jsut to make money . They didn't want you to buy things form other companies . And note their reversal of that lately - altho limited to buying your own kb, mouse etc . Steve Wozniak would disagree with it all - he was the original customiser . I'm with Metla - we're talking real PCs here . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 346839 | 2005-04-20 01:16:00 | I'll keep that in mind the next time a business rings up and requests additional storage and a ram upgrade for their comps, oh wait, I'll dismiss it entirely as their comps were designed to have this function. | Metla (12) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||