*******
Tags:
-
Last edited by ZDL; 05-01-10 at 04:50.
-
From 2007 MadTV:
Originally Posted by ZDL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs -
Originally Posted by SHIVAN
Too Damn Funny.
Thanks for posting, I shared with some friends who are Appleheads. -
Here's my take on this whole thing. Not that it really means much.
Speaking generally, the people whose arguments that a Mac can't do what their Windows PC's can do shouldn't be looking at Apple as a scapegoat. There's absolutely no reason a software maker couldn't port their product over to both operating systems. Practically speaking however, the cost/benefit of doing this doesn't necessarily pan out. While not economically feasible, there really isn't anything else keeping software companies from going cross-platform.
As an aside there's nothing I haven't been able to run effectively in either Boot Camp or Parallels. I can use my OS X specific software in OS X, and Windows specific software in Windows under a virtual machine. I agree this is not necessarily an optimal solution and undesirable for a large percentage of people.
When it comes to the iPad, it's definitely a situation where you can't judge this by the individual hardware, the software shipping from Apple, nor can you really compare it to a netbook. They're designed for different things, and the sum-total of the iPad will really come to light when developers get a hold of the SDK and start developing apps specifically for the platform.
While multi-tasking is something that Apple will have to develop themselves, there's no reason that any other software solution can't be developed third-party. I doubt industrial level applications will show up but you never know. I know there are already iPhone apps that I could use to great success day one, even if an iPad version never materializes. I don't expect to be able to run a full version of Solidworks on this thing, but I see no reason a software developer couldn't release a viewer app that allows a construction foreman to pull up a dwg, take measurements from drawings, and annotate files. I can definitely see great success with medical apps or financial apps provided someone is willing to write the software. Outside of the cheesedick apps that really do nothing but waste time, I definitely see the potential for this to adapt to any number of uses, and think the more active the development community is, the greater number of people this will appeal to.
In the end the point is that there's really no reason to judge the iPad as it comes straight from Apple since there are already a bunch of apps that will work, and there will be many more in development which will shape the users experience to whatever they want. As more developers see the potential the market will increase and the deficiencies present at launch will gradually shrink. One of the unfortunate aspects of Apple releasing this is the automatic stigma associated with the brand. People don't see the long term potential inherent to the design, they see the limitations of the bone stock product. -
Of course not. But it's such a strawman. "If your department only authorizes .38 Special ammo, is the 1911 logicially a good fit for you?" Who said it was? Originally Posted by SHIVAN
But suggesting that "most businesses" (your words) have some kind of major HW or SW issue that would prevent them from having Macs in the fold is unfounded. My wife's organization is 100% Wintel and interacts with the various state Depts. of Education which are all also 100% Wintel. She's getting a Mac. And it's having zero impact on her, her organization's, or her colleagues abilities to get things done, interact, or exchange files.
When I worked at SIG, they used two pieces of software -- Lotus Notes and ACT -- which didn't have native OS X versions. The short term solution was to use both via Parallels. The long term solution was to transition out of platform-specific software.
Contrary to your claim, getting Parallels up and running with a licensed version of WinXP costs about $150, not $300. But yes, that is an additional expense that some business- and home-users will need to factor in. No argument. But in the past 28 months I've been running my Macs without Parallels. The only time I use Boot Camp is to play games. And when I use Boot Camp to play games, my computer runs just as well as an equally-spec'd PC.
I know a number of folks at S&W who use Macs, too. Somehow, even a big publicly traded company like that seems to be able to function with Apple computers in the building. It must be magic!
No one here is saying that every computer in the world should be a Mac. But the argument "not every computer in the world can be a Mac" doesn't somehow make Macs a poor choice... which is why so many home and business users are switching to it.
I know you'd like them to change their slogan to, "Mac: It just works unless you're running some esoteric software or peripheral and your vendor doesn't care enough about your business to make it Mac compatible" but something tells me the marketing department isn't going to run with that.
Last edited by ToddG; 01-28-10 at 18:47.
-
The HP Slate looks pretty slick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yz5YccwjE&feature=fvw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apwIiqIKf84
Last edited by Irish; 01-28-10 at 18:33.
-
Hi All... -
It's even cheaper if you use the open source Virtual Box software. I have used VMWare Fusion, Parallels and VBox. VMWare and Parallels have some nice features, but none of which are so important that they beat out the free VBox software. Originally Posted by ToddG
We have stopped buying Parallels in favor of VBox where I work. After that, it's just a windows licenses we need to purchase. -
Look, you slam one "strawman", and offer most likely another silo'ed user at one corporation as an equally glaring strawman. Let me guess, she's a corp officer, legal or some G&A/OH support person, with no direct tie ins to an ERP system, administration of any sub-systems, no submission of bank data, engineering data, signal processing data? Originally Posted by ToddG
Let me further hypothesize that she primarily uses a word processor, some light spreadsheets, some web interaction with browser based tools, and a lot of email? Essentially a user who could be fulfilled with a four year old smart phone of any make...right? So the Mac is a "cool tool" in a Win shop. I understand, I've got them in my shop too.
In outside marketing, sales or training right? Think maybe your engineers, accountants, and production folks had some pretty specific Win only apps? They were still Sig, right? Hmm...not as easy a strawman to tear up when you look from top to bottom of the corp. I know for a fact they use(d) one S/W that doesn't work on a Mac anything without the assistance of some coaxing and setup of a separate emulation software -- sure it just works, but not on OSX.When I worked at SIG, they used two pieces of software -- Lotus Notes and ACT -- which didn't have native OS X versions. The short term solution was to use both via Parallels. The long term solution was to transition out of platform-specific software.
That's great, you got WinXP. How about any software licenses you might need to handle the files created in Win that do not port over to the Mac in any fashion? I know the $$$ number for my example, because I -- as in me personally with my corp Amex -- bought the MacBook Pros that my CFO and BusOps manager use. Both with Fusion, Office Pro, and WinXpPro. I actually am using a round number, and think $300 was low for the exact outfitting needed to get them where they needed to be.Contrary to your claim, getting Parallels up and running with a licensed version of WinXP costs about $150, not $300. But yes, that is an additional expense that some business- and home-users will need to factor in. No argument. But in the past 28 months I've been running my Macs without Parallels. The only time I use Boot Camp is to play games. And when I use Boot Camp to play games, my computer runs just as well as an equally-spec'd PC.
Again, what is the nature of their work, and could ALL of the employees at S&W use them? If not, then it doesn't "just work" for those folks, now does it?? The ULTIMATE STRAWMAN. Again, cherry picking what amounts to silo'ed users and or users who had to massage their Apple product with an add-on program, a Win license, and some peripheral "screwing with it" to get it to "just work".I know a number of folks at S&W who use Macs, too. Somehow, even a big publicly traded company like that seems to be able to function with Apple computers in the building. It must be magic!
Fact is, Apple has a less than 25% total market saturation, and most of that saturation is students, home PC's, and very light business use outside of studio work, art rendering, graphic design, etc. For the same reason Macs are not infested with viruses yet is the same reason why you don't see third party support of compatible apps, clients, drivers, or interfaces. Let's call the total business make-up of that 25%, as 20%, then look at programs like AutoCAD, and how many businesses in the 20% use AutoCAD? Why would Autodesk make a Mac native version? They would lose money on conversion costs alone.I know you'd like them to change their slogan to, "Mac: It just works unless you're running some esoteric software or peripheral and your vendor doesn't care enough about your business to make it Mac compatible" but something tells me the marketing department isn't going to run with that.
So then the slogan for business scenarios like that would have to be, "Macs just work, but you still have to coax, configure, and screw with it to get there." Not quite as clean from the marketing angle, but the brushed aluminum cases with LED Mac Apples sure are nice for chatting about when you are the only one who has one in a Win shop.
Last edited by SHIVAN; 01-28-10 at 19:48.
-
Dude, we are clearly coming at this from two completely different universes.
For the first four years I was at SIG, they weren't even using a Win-based database system for orders, accounting, engineering, etc. It was all proprietary. They could just as easily have moved most of it over to Mac if they wanted. And if they can afford to have a proprietary Win system built, they can afford to have a proprietary OS X system built.
To answer your question, Yes, most if not all of the Mac users at the companies I'm talking about are doing the Office/email stuff primarily. And those people can use Macs without the headaches associated with Wintel boxes. Maybe some poor sorry bastard in IT will have to jump through a few hoops to make the Mac and Wintel boxes work nicely together. Good thing they get paid for their work.
Again, you keep coming down to "there might be someone in the building who can't use a Mac, so no one should use a Mac." It just doesn't follow.
You say Apple has only 25% market saturation. That's double what it was just a few years ago, isn't it? You can pretend it's just a bunch of musicians and students but I travel a lot and see a lot of professionals whipping out MBPs on airplanes and in business meetings.
You don't have to buy a Mac, it's ok. You don't have to like Macs. But the people who just can't help themselves from coming into a discussion about Apple for no purpose other than the declare how bad/problematic/conformist Macs are... I can only assume their brains have been warped by too much time spent repairing registries.
