mlambert890

The Mac vs. PC Debate Was Never Clearer

Also want to comment on life cycle...

I'm sorry to say, but this is more Apple brainwashing. I mean if you enjoy your choice of Apple as a product, good for you! But please, lets stay rooted in reality.

There is nothing in any Mac that is "years ahead". Ever. POSSIBLY that case could have been made in the early 90s. Those days are LONG over for Apple.

Apple uses:

Intel processors
Nvidia or ATI video cards
Standard RAM matched to the Intel processors
A standard EFI BIOS
Basically standard Intel chipsets

This is the reason you can run Windows Vista on your Mac. You can also run OSX x86 on a PC.

Does this not seem curious AT ALL to Mac fans? How can you still accept this "but there's magic sauce!!!" Argument when you can run WINDOWS *on* your Mac? Is it that the average Mac fan understands so little about computers that they dont understand the implications of that?

Any PC you buy today (Windows based, Linux based, or Apple manufactured) will last you YEARS if you want it to.

I have PC's sitting here that were bought at the exact same time as my Mac G5 and they are every bit as useful.

People upgrade PCs because the PCs are cheaper and they CAN upgrade them. People *choose* to hold onto the Mac *because* it is so expensive to upgrade. There is NO "TCO" argument to be had here.

And I have never had any issue with a virus, or spyware, or a trojan or any malware at all going right back to the rise of the internet. And I have never spent a *dime* on security software - free versions have always been available.

On the other hand, I *have* had Mac users who have brought their system to me because it was "acting funny" and they had a rootkit on it.

So all of this BS about there being such huge differentiators is FUD. These systems are far more similar than different and any leanings are personal preference. Mac fans just argue more vocally because for them it is a social statement to buy a Mac. For the PC user its a tool.

The Mac vs. PC Debate Was Never Clearer

Here is the problem with the article (I see lots of Apple fans here too modding reasonable comments down, so I dont expect a reasonable debate)

The analogy with cars is ridiculous. Most analogies tend to be ridiculous but this one particularly so.

Only in the minds of the Mac fanatics/faithful is the Mac a "Porsche" or "Mercedes Benz" in comparison to HP, Dell, Alienware, Sony or what have you. It's a laughable comparison. The difference between a Porsche and a Camry is staggering. The difference between a bloated overly expensive Mac Pro desktop and a high end PC is generally case design and the use of the Xeon processor and a slower video card.

Even in this comment stream, Mac fans are screaming that you can't get a "faster PC for cheaper". You can't have it both ways. Either Macs are an amazing high end bargain, or the are the Mercedes Benz/Porsche.

And that brings me to the real point of why people who know nothing about technology or the tech industry (most journalists) but are just enamored with their Mac (most journalists) shouldnt write tech articles....

The fact is that Apple makes both Camrys and Porsches (is this author completely unaware of the Mac mini or the low end Macbook?) and the PC industry ALSO makes both Camrys and Porsches.

The icing on the cake is of course that everyone slices "statistics" to represent what they want. So now Apple has "91% of the high end market". They also have "100% of the iPod market" and "100% of the iPhone market". They have "100% of the market for brushed aluminum computers that sell for a base price of $2499.99 and have a Xeon processor"

Also in, Apple has "100% of the market for computers with a fruit based logo"

The fact that articles need to be written endlessly to rationalize and justify Apples market position speaks volumes both about the protestors and about Apples position.

If the hypothesis that Apple is an elite and incredible high end luxury brand along the lines of Bentley or Rolls Royce is to be accepted, then the Mac Mini should have been a STAGGERING success rather than a pretty dismal failure. Same for the Macbook basic.

Carl Icahn May Rekindle Yahoo-Microsoft Deal

Well... One thing obvious is that Goldman obviously wants this deal even though no one else seems to. No matter WHAT the news has been, a Goldman analyst has found a way to spin that into proof that a "deal is inevitable"

I, for one, am really hoping they are wrong. Yahoo is a dog and would mire MSFT down with integration challenges that would go on for years and cost a ton. In the meantime, the combined entity would still have no chance of catching Google. As a MSFT shareholder, this deal stinks.

How Much Will Jerry Yang's Ego Cost Yahoo Shareholders?

Not greed... Ego and ideology. The author here was correct. Its hard for those outside of the tech industry (you know, normal people) to comprehend just how passionate and irrational the hatred for MSFT is.

If there is one thing more distasteful than rappacious greed, it is certainly irrational ideological zealotry. Thats what happened here. Yang got his way, stuck SB in the eye, and is now the shining hero of the LAMP holy warriors. He still has HIS billions and, well, whatever happens to Yahoo down the road doesnt really have any personal impact on him now does it? He can always rationalize it for himself by blaming the rank and file.

And for the guy who feels it is silly to "personalize" this? MAN do you need a clue! I mean do you have ANY experience with the workings of corporate politics at all?

7 Reasons You Can't Kill Microsoft

Ha... OK Brewer and SingHash... You guys are right. MSFT is dead and was only ever a rackateer. You make that bet, and Ill bet with Joe and we'll see what happens. I think some are so ideological on this issue (for some bizarre reason) that it totally clouds any ability they have to think rationally. Some people in technology take it WAY too seriously and, sorry to be cliche, really need a life.