Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Computer Compatibility Debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    >I wonder if flash memory using USB ports is somehow going to enter into
    >this discussion, as they are beginning to show up on so much digital >equipment. In other words, does being freed from the 3.5 inch floppy slot >force many industries to do more with compatibility, as more industries are
    >going to be interdependent
    Observing the way that my wife works, I think you are onto something. She keeps all her working documents on a Flash drive, and plugs it either into the Mac or our Windows laptop and works on either - and of course with the machines at work.

    This seems a lot easier to deal with than trying to keep versions of documents synchronised between the two machines, or working using networked drives (even though I have set them up).

    A lot of people are betting on people storing everything online, but I am less convinced (overall 40 years, the trend has been away from things being on centralised systems to being on ever more personal devices).

    Comment


    • #17
      Another random thought-- (and not necessarily a pro-Mac one--this thread could be worse than talking about sports loyalties )

      Microsoft became Microsoft because they understood that software, not hardware, would define the industry. Apple bet on hardware. Given this, it seems odd to me that Apple's media software seems to ahead of Microsoft's in many ways. This has been the case in graphic design for years, but the home market is beginning to reflect this, as well, particularly with iLife--especially iTunes. I know that Windows has a media center now, but it seems like they are playing catch-up.

      Given that media applications are giving people more uses for their home computers, I wonder if this bodes positively for Apple in the long run, or negatively for Microsoft. Or both. Or neither.

      Again, not necessarily a pro-Mac thing, just some things this thread has made me consider. If we agree that Apple is the future, we'll all buy stock!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doc
        Microsoft became Microsoft because they understood that software, not hardware, would define the industry. Apple bet on hardware. Given this, it seems odd to me that Apple's media software seems to ahead of Microsoft's in many ways. This has been the case in graphic design for years, but the home market is beginning to reflect this, as well, particularly with iLife--especially iTunes. I know that Windows has a media center now, but it seems like they are playing catch-up.
        Microsoft has never been an innovative company. Who remembers Bill Gates dismissing the Internet as the future of IT about two years before it suddenly took off big time? Likewise, MS-DOS wasn't something that Gates knocked up in his garage - he bought it from someone else (who knocked it up in their garage) when Microsoft were bidding for IBM's OS tender and he needed an OS to demonstrate. That was called QDOS - Quick and Dirty Operating System. What Microsoft appear to have understood better than Apple is marketing.

        Microsoft software may not be the best in the world, but it subscribes to the philosophy of 'good enough' - and that's 'good enough' for 90% of the world's PC users. :)

        Originally posted by Doc
        Given that media applications are giving people more uses for their home computers, I wonder if this bodes positively for Apple in the long run, or negatively for Microsoft. Or both. Or neither.
        Don't forget that Microsoft and/or Bill Gates actually bailed Apple out about six(?) years ago. I don't know what Microsoft's stake in Apple is, but the decision was seen as good for Apple - because it stopped them going under - and good for Microsoft because it meant they could continue to point to Apple as an 'alternative' to Microsoft's monopoly of the IT industry.
        _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
        _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
        _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
        _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by David Mosley
          I'm convinced this is a mind-set thing. I've seen and occassionally had to use Mac PCs and the GUI was almost completely alien to what I was used to with Windows. Where was the 'right-mouse click button' feature for 's sake? Likewise, I've had Mac users who couldn't navigate around a Windows GUI either. It does all depend on what you're used to and possibly what you first used when you got into computing.
          It's partly mindset. Learning one system makes it harder to adapt to the other. I will confess that the first time I used OS X I found it completely alien, to the extent I couldn't even work out how to open Word. This contrasted completely with my experience of machines in the 80s, where if you had used an Atari ST, you would be comfortable using a Mac, Amiga or Windows machine, as they were all roughly similar.

          I have a 4-button mouse on my Mac, and they have supported multi-buton mice since the 80s, but I can entirely understand where they were coming from in resisting the multi-button mouse. The idea is to force developers into designing an interface that will work with a single button mouse. Every important action should be represented on the screen, rather than 'hidden'.
          You have to keep coming back and saying 'How would this work with a one-button mouse' rather than 'just add it to the right-click menu'.

          In contrast the Windows app I'm using right now has 22 items on the right-click and 10 of those are sub-menus. Do they really all need to be there?

          It took a few months before I had 'unlearnt' enough to start using OS X productively; that I could just drag and drop images between applications rather than cut-and-paste, with a lot of faith it would work.

          Originally posted by David Mosley
          There are people who swear that a pure DOS-like interface is infinitely better than these new-fangled GUIs.
          If I want to move 2000 files starting with A into a new folder, it is definitely quicker to use 'cp A* /targetdir' than trying to do it graphicall - most power users on both the PC and Mac use keyboard shortcuts rather than the mouse.


          My favourite bit about the Apple/Xerox thing was the story about one of the guys at Apple pulling a whole load of late shifts to make sure that when you moved a window out of the way, you could immediately see what was in the window 'behind'. He'd been convinced he'd seen this on the Xerox machines but in fact they hadn't.

          Details of the court case here :

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

          Comment


          • #20
            >Microsoft has never been an innovative company. Who remembers Bill >Gates dismissing the Internet as the future of IT about two years before it >suddenly took off big time?
            To be fair, he thought that it was going to be 'closed' networks like AOL that would win, because they would have access to exclusive content.

            The funny thing is that Microsoft actually fund an awful lot of research into computing, and do have a lot of innovation going on in their labs. They have experimental operating systems that have nothing to do with Windows at all. In a sense they are bit like Xerox in the 60s - their problem lies more with getting their innovation to market. And whether their market wants innovation.

            >Likewise, MS-DOS wasn't something that Gates knocked up in his garage - >he bought it from someone else (who knocked it up in their garage) when >Microsoft were bidding for IBM's OS tender and he needed an OS to >demonstrate. That was called QDOS - Quick and Dirty Operating System.
            While that is true, he did develop Microsoft's first program, a version of BASIC. It is not true to describe him wholly as a business-person.

            I'd add that Apple have also bought-in a lot of stuff over the years. There is probably less pure R&D going on at Apple than Microsoft. The difference is that they're much more focused on turning that innovation into product. A major reason they can do that is that they control the entire line. They don't need to persuade Dell to add a Firewire socket to their machines so they can connect with video cameras.

            >What Microsoft appear to have understood better than Apple is marketing

            I'm not sure that is true. Microsoft managed to achieve market dominance without most people even knowing who they were. They understood that the easiest route was to get other people to do all the work for them. Let IBM and Olivetti compete to the death to sell machines that both came with Microsoft software. I remember most people referred to MS-DOS/Windows machines as 'IBM compatible' into the early 90s.

            It wasn't until Windows 95 that they really started pushing Microsoft as a brand - and their main target wasn't Apple, but users with Windows 3.0. And that has been the case since. Microsoft's main competition is old Microsoft software.

            >Microsoft software may not be the best in the world, but it subscribes to >the philosophy of 'good enough' - and that's 'good enough' for 90% of the >world's PC users.
            Or at least until they bring out a new version, when they will spend millions to convince people it is no longer good enough!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Doc
              Microsoft became Microsoft because they understood that software, not hardware, would define the industry. Apple bet on hardware.
              The XBox 360 looks pretty much like a piece of hardware to me!
              Dell bet on hardware. Apple bet on a platform.

              . . .
              >I know that Windows has a
              >media center now, but it seems like they are playing catch-up.

              Windows Media centre is actually a more functional piece of software than Apple's Front Row by a long way, but it is also a useful demonstration in the philosophical differences between the two firms. The Apple remote control uses the same click-wheel / 5-button interface as the iPod. A typical Media Centre PC remote control has over 20 buttons.

              There is a great quote describing Microsoft's software engineers - 'They've never seen a feature they don't like'.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by David Mosley
                At work we primarily use Dell hardware for our servers and end-users running mostly Windows XP and Server 2000/2003 and for my money - ok, for my employer's money - its perfectly 'good enough' for business purposes.
                Loaded question : Have they ever done a real cost comparison to, say, Sun or Linux based servers? I do get the sneaking feeling that increasingly people just don't actually know about anything else.

                Originally posted by David Mosley
                WinXP is a much more reliable and stable OS than WinNT or Win2k ever were and the amount of time I spend resolving BSODs has decreased dramatically.
                What's a BSOD :-)

                I primarily work with the type of organisations who measure their up-time in months, and have systems where they can swap out a failed disk-drive without bringing the machine down. Bouncing the application is considered bad enough. If an application causes the computer to be bounced, you start getting serious phone calls from very senior management. (Actually I don't, thank god, they go to the MD).

                Originally posted by David Mosley
                Since our average hardware cost per system is something like £250-£400 (depreciated over 3 years) it's not like we're spending £1500 per unit, which is what they used to do 6-7 years ago.
                We mostly use Dells and Viglen's on the desktop for the same reason - they are dirt cheap and replaceable. Losing a desktop machine isn't a big deal. Some of our clients are now looking an Windows Embedded devices like Wyse or the Jack PC, because the only applications their staff have access to run in the web browser.
                Needless to say, I won't be getting a Wyse terminal for home.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jules
                  Originally posted by David Mosley
                  At work we primarily use Dell hardware for our servers and end-users running mostly Windows XP and Server 2000/2003 and for my money - ok, for my employer's money - its perfectly 'good enough' for business purposes.
                  Loaded question : Have they ever done a real cost comparison to, say, Sun or Linux based servers? I do get the sneaking feeling that increasingly people just don't actually know about anything else.
                  Actually we do have a number of Sun servers - it's just that I don't get involved in that side of things, leaving it to my more technically-minded colleague to play with. The Sun servers are huge great boxes by the way; we must be talking 3.5ft x 3ft x 4ft or something (I've never measured them). We have one or two developers who are also utilising Linux/Unix systems for stuff but again it's all a foreign country to this Windows-bred user. :)

                  Originally posted by Jules
                  What's a BSOD
                  Sorry, for the non-IT people reading that's 'Blue Screen Of Death' - basically that moment when Windows suddenly dies on you for no good reason, spurts a whole load of data up at you (on a blue screen - hence the name) which doesn't tell you anything other than it's time to hit that Power button and hope for the best. On the old WinNT platform it normally meant it was time to reinstall the OS. Thankfully, it seems to happen a lot less with WinXP.

                  Originally posted by Jules
                  I primarily work with the type of organisations who measure their up-time in months, and have systems where they can swap out a failed disk-drive without bringing the machine down. Bouncing the application is considered bad enough. If an application causes the computer to be bounced, you start getting serious phone calls from very senior management. (Actually I don't, thank god, they go to the MD).
                  This might be going off on a tangent, but when I started working with Windows NT servers regularly 6 years ago my manager said whenever he had to reboot a NT server he's get down on his hands and knees and pray that it would restart okay. I don't know whether it's because the hardware/software has got better in the intervening years, or that I've just developed a laissez faire attitude but computer systems seem a lot more robust in my experience these days.
                  _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                  _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                  _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                  _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    David,

                    Thanks!, and thanks for the link! That rules, free downloads are great.


                    I did read the novel adaptations that were based on the game,haha, but I imagine it does not give away spoilers, besides, I forget most of what the characters did in those books. (Betrayal At Krondor) :)

                    yeah, sometimes the old games have more to offer. ;)

                    "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                    - Michael Moorcock

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jules
                      The XBox 360 looks pretty much like a piece of hardware to me!
                      Dell bet on hardware. Apple bet on a platform.
                      Very astute.

                      Of course, it's hard to consider today's Apple, Microsoft, or Dell a bad return on a bet from their earlier days. Whining that you picked Apple over Microsoft would be like complaining that your bet came in at 15:1 instead of 50:1. Or that you won the lottery and it was under $100 million.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Commodore 64

                        The Commodore brand name has gone back into circulation as USB devices apparently:

                        Post-Commodore International, Ltd.

                        Following its liquidation, Commodore's former assets went their separate ways, with none of Commodore's successors repeating Commodore's early success.
                        Commodore UK was the only subsidiary to survive the bankruptcy and even placed a bid to buy out the rest of the operation, or at least the former parent company. For a time it was considered the front runner in the bid, and numerous reports, all false, surfaced during the 1994-1995 time frame that Commodore UK had made the purchase. Commodore UK stayed in business by selling old inventory and making computer speakers and some other types of computer peripherals. However, Commodore UK lost its financial backing after several larger companies, including Gateway Computers and Dell Inc., became interested, primarily for Commodore's 47 patents relating to the Amiga. Ultimately, the successful bidder was German PC conglomerate Escom, and Commodore UK was absorbed into Escom in mid-1995.
                        Escom paid US$14 million for Commodore International, primarily for the Commodore brand name. It separated the Commodore and Amiga operations into separate divisions and quickly started using the brand name on a line of PCs sold in Europe. However, it quickly started losing money, went bankrupt on July 15, 1996, and was liquidated.
                        In September 1997, the Commodore brand name was acquired by Dutch computer maker Tulip Computers NV. Tulip's ownership was little more than the answer to a trivia question until July 11, 2003, when Tulip announced it would re-launch the Commodore name, including new Commodore 64-related products, and threatened legal action against commercial Web sites that used the computer's name without a license. On 18 June 2004, Tulip introduced the website CommodoreWorld.com (see external links, below), run by its new daughter company Commodore International BV.
                        The Commodore brand name resurfaced in late 2003 on an inexpensive portable MP3 player made in China by Tai Guen Enterprise, sold mostly in Europe. However, the device's connection to Tulip, the legal owners of the name, is unclear.
                        In July of 2004, Tulip announced a new series of products using the Commodore name: fPET, a flash memory-based USB Key drive; mPET, a flash-based MP3 Player and digital recorder; eVIC, a 20 GB music player; and the C64 DTV.
                        In late 2004 Tulip sold the Commodore name to Yeahronimo Media Ventures for €22 million [1]. The sale was completed in March 2005 after months of negotiations.
                        The Commodore Semiconductor Group (formerly MOS Technology, Inc.) was bought by its former management and in 1995, resumed operations under the name GMT Microelectronics, utilizing a troubled facility in Norristown, Pennsylvania that Commodore had closed in 1992. By 1999 it had $21 million in revenues and 183 employees. However, in 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency shut the plant down. GMT ceased operations and was liquidated.
                        Ownership of the Amiga line passed through several owners, from Escom of Germany in 1995, and then to U.S. PC clone maker Gateway in 1997, before being licensed to Amiga, Inc., a company founded by former Gateway employees Bill McEwen and Fleecy Moss in 2000.
                        Here's the Commodore 64 link:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64
                        Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          IIRC, Apple computers started with Xerox chips and eventually Motorola chipsets, and now . Apple had a the longest running trifecta, and arguably still does, consisting of applications (the stuff you really use, like Photoshop), operating system (application platform), and computer hardware (OS platform). Compared to Microsoft's bifecta (OS & applications) coupled with a software cartel, the so called WinDellTel triopoly (so called by me ), Apple Computers were minimalized in the marketplace, and thank God for that, they've had to compete and innovate for their new footing. The noise created by Linux (I am a devote user of all technology, so please don't put me into the "religious zealot" bucket) and Apple have fractured Microsoft's strategies. Utterly. The other 800 pound gorilla in the room? Cell phones/mobile devices. The only way Microsoft gets in is through competition and serious concessions. heh. They got the PC wave and made some serious dosh, but they missed the $49 handset/$2000 2 year contract wave and they will suffer for this. Why? Because a larger percentage of consumers can affored our post-Commodore era phones and iPods. They don't have to consume the product from the triopoly. Now we are going to see some serious devices in the future. We should be concerned about the number of handsets going into the land fills. The closest Microsoft can get to Apple's trifecta is the X-Box. The consumption of technology is creating a consumer that, naturally, can consume more technology. Micorsoft becomes marginalized and will have to spend immense amount of dollars to compete as their shareholders become alienated. Chaos Engineers will fly in, out and around The Insect, eventually devouring it. http://www.shadowflux.com/xbox.html http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php

                          I just bought a MacBook for my wife, who is loving it. And so am I. The MacBook (Intel chipset) totally rules. Microsoft has serious problems now. At ~$1100, the MacBook provides a system that doesn't have that stale corporate look-and-feel (remember that catch phrase?). What about Mac mobile devices? iPod solved that problem. It won't be long before we have iPhones or some such device. The Motorola ROKR had iTunes on it, but the 100 song limit really killed the popularity of the device. The networking of Mac devices among like products is so ubiquitous when you walk into a room all the devices have married themselves to the newcomer. Windows' Bluetooth stack reeks and you can barely maintain a wireless connection. Microsoft's products must become more like Apple's, but Apple's will have to have a broader set of hardware, which will introduce more expensive problems like those of Microsoft.

                          What I'm trying to point out is that introducing Intel was about saving money and promoting interesting in Apple stock. It was also about Intel wriggling out of Govenor Tarkin's (Microsoft's) squeezing fist.

                          The idea that hardware is the solution to everything working together sort of misses the mark. Virtualization and emulation make this possible. Hardware based virtualization is what will make operating systems meaningless. Intel's native hardware virtualization is about to squeeze the life out of Microsoft, probably in an alliance with Apple. One day, you'll have a computer that will allow you to run some Linux utilities, Microsoft Word, Apple Photoshop from a hardware based OS that can run such programs without the parent OS, though I'm sure Microsoft will pay dearly to have a Windows emulator running as a session on one of those chips.

                          Microsoft executives have begun the inevitible exodus (note the clever reference to exe and dos in the word exodus).
                          Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jules
                            In layman's terms, prior to 2005, Apple used chips that spoke a different language. They now use the same Intel chips used by Microsoft's Windows software, most versions of Linux, and some other less known operating systems.
                            Less known: OSX called Darwin, which is a variant of FreeBSD, and Open Source Unix fork with superior memory handling.

                            Originally posted by Jules
                            From one point of view this is a good thing - it means owners of Apple machines, at least, can run almost all available software.
                            Essentially true, but, if I may say this without insulting you (because I don't mean to), an over-simplificiation. To run Linux and/or Windows, you have to do some low level system configuration that would puzzle Grandma. Grandma is our Worst Case Scenario, okay? There are grandmothers who have no problem with computers, but I hope we can agree that the typical grandma would be baffled by things that are technologically advanced. I speak from the perspective of a professional who has seen many perplexed grandmothers over the last 12 years. Grandma could learn, but refuses to, and frequently says "I can't even program my VCR." You could run Windows and/or Linux sessions using something like Virtual PC, an application that let's you run OS sessions on top of OSX. The financial aspect is that you have to own a Windows license to running a virtualized version of it, so what's the point (not of your question, of running Windows on Mac hardware)?

                            Originally posted by Jules
                            From another point of view, it is a bad thing. It is a bit like the world settling on English as the dominant language - there is a gain in everyone being able to understand each other, but something important is also lost.
                            I disagree here, because Apple doesn't have a mononpoly, despite it's trifecta.

                            Originally posted by Jules
                            We have already reached the day when there is no meaningful difference in hardware; the day when there is no meaningful difference in software will be a victory for the Lords Of Law.
                            Cell phones and other mobile devices kind of refute this, if you ask me. Chaos is rising and is about to devour The Original Insect, but eternal proliferation isn't good either. I think we'll have a balance for a while, but it will tip towards Chaos soon.

                            Originally posted by Jules
                            (Developments in China may change this. China is very determined to develop it's own high-tech infrastructure that is not tied to US standards).
                            They use a lot of Linux. They use a lot of Microsoft. Microsoft have done a lot to get global, but the Chinese and other governments are concerned about Microsoft and other American companies who have master keys into their products. The American government are constantly trying to get American hardware and software companies to provide a skeleton key into their products. World governments should be very wary.

                            Originally posted by Jules
                            As to whether the difference between Mac and PC is meaningful, this is a hard question to answer. In terms of the hardware, the two platforms are now identical. People have proven that the Mac operating system will run on non-Apple machines.

                            However, the difference between Windows, Linux and the Mac (OS X) is meaningful. When I started programming back in the 80s, most software developers would write everything from the ground up, using the 'machine language' of the computer itself. That was the only way to make programs fast enough. About the only part of the built-in software most programs used was to load the tape, and you needed a good understanding of the physical hardware.
                            Not just proven, but hacked. This is good. There are a couple of Linux flavors for Mac. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search But this is really just interesting as opposed to widely useful. If it breaks you have to fix it yourself ala Open Source. The differences are meaningful, because you can still only buy stuff and think one way as it relates to your chosen platform.

                            Neither are going to matter in the future. Google has seen to that. Consider GMAIL.

                            Originally posted by Jules

                            As for how the Mac or Linux machines can run Windows - there are three ways :
                            1) Start up the machine and run Windows instead. This is because they now all share the same hardware.
                            2) Through 'virtualisation'. Than means I start up my machine, then I open a window, and inside that window is another 'virtual machine' which I can use to run Windows on (and then run a Windows program).
                            3) 'Crossover'/WINE. The Windows system is now so old, that people have been able to write a system that understands the language it speaks and behaves the same way. It can translate applications that 'speak Windows' into Linux or OS X. It's only about 90% effective, and when the next version of Windows comes out, it will take several years to catch up.
                            I happen to know that recent licensing developments is going to get Wine in big trouble.

                            Great post Jules.
                            Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Doc
                              My comments have little to do with compatability, but are tangentially related to the conversation...

                              I'm a Mac guy, too. I use a PowerBook at Work and an iMac at home. One reason for this is that I like OS X better than any operating system I've ever used. However I also think Macs are simply better machines.

                              (For what its worth, Berry got me started on looking into this.) Macs have better quality control that most other machines, especially in hardware compatability. Apple makes sure that its components preform well together. According to a few stories the local paper ran (AMD is headquartered here), when Apple was looking into changing its chips, they experimented with both AMD and Intel chips. The AMD chips were generally better, as they ran cooler and a little quicker. Choosing AMD would have sat better with some of the maverick types at Apple who saw Intel as the establishment. However, overall performance was better with Intel chips, so they went with them.

                              On the compatibility aspect, most ordinary files have always crossed Windows/Mac platforms pretty easily, especially word processing and spreadsheets.

                              I also agree that Microsoft is a lumbering dinosaur, more concerned with market share and loyalty than being anywhere near state of the art.
                              The Intel based MacBook runs cooler, battery lasts longer (with more hardware features consuming power no less), runs quieter, is lighter, slicker and is just a joy to use. I've hi-jacked my wife's computer for these posts.

                              The Microsaurus is running out of treetops.

                              Going with Intel was Apple's only real choice. Microsoft loses it's preferentiality with Intel in the long run. Heh. They'll have to go pay AMD monster money to compete against Apple/Intel while they are plugging the mobile devices leaking artery.

                              Am I enjoying this thread or what? It was fix a couple of bugs at the site or rant for a couple of hours.
                              Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by johneffay
                                This is one of those myths that Apple like to see their fanbase spread around

                                The truth is that Macs have better quality control than machines that are cheaper than they are. However, buy a similarly specced PC for the same price as a Mac, and you won't find much difference in terms of build quality and reliability.

                                I'm not anti-Mac; in fact I have one sitting next to me at the minute, but a lot of the claims made for the company and products are simply hype. My favourite is the one about Steve Jobs somehow being a much nicer guy than Bill Gates...
                                I think this is a red herring. Microsoft doesn't have to QA any equipment (well, except the PC based XBOX), and Apple have a very limited base of hardware they must test against.
                                Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X