Re: PC or Mac?

["Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <byron@b60z27hbb464i.ab.hsia.telus.net>]

In article <a3b0fq$nvn$1@merope.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Isn't BeOS available for the x86 platform as well?

Sure.  So is OS/2.  Unless the companies which own these products
in the near future (is it already too late for OS/2), hardware
compatibility is going to dwindle and these products are going to
become even more irrelevant than they already are.  IMHO, BeOS
also has problems with software availablility.  This is not as
much of a problem with OS/2 if you don't mind older software.

> Did I ever claim it wasn't?

You were being hard on the Apple to the point of making statements
which were untrue.  As a result I was probably being a little hard on
you and ended up misinterpreting your motivations.

> However the fact remains that the hardware of a Mac is a monopoly
> market: you have only one supplier: Apple Computer.

By this logic, Sony is a monopoly because only Sony makes the Viao.
I'm sorry, but your logic does not cut it.  A computer, is a computer,
is a computer.  If you don't like Apple you can buy a Wintel PC, a
Sparc, or one of the dozen other platforms out there.  I can only
come up with three factors which inhibit a transition: the cost of
replacing software (not an issue since everybody, except myself,
appears to have tonnes of money to burn), the inavailability of
certain types of software (which may imply you were using the right
platform in the first place), and converting documents to the new
platform.  In the last case, well it is an issue regardless of the
platform you use (ie. it is as much a problem for Windows to Mac
users as it is for Mac to Windows users).

> The hardware for the PC is not a monopoly market -- there are many
> brands to choose among, and you can even build your own computer if
> you want (it's not that difficult).

I tried this route but bumped into three problems:

1) Upgrading from my old 486 (one of the advantages of working with
   components) was prohibitively expensive.  At the time, changing
   the mainboard would mean replacing my old RAM and several of my
   ISA peripheral cards.  Nowdays I would even have to replace my
   powersupply and changing the case would be desirable (the design
   of ATX cases appears to be much more modern, much more like my
   Quadra 950 ;).
2) I treat the longevity of a computer as being an important feature.
   As such purchasing components for a PC is not so easy: if you ask
   for quality, you are liable to be sold performance or brand name.
   If you ask for longevity, you will receive confused looks (exactly
   why does it have to last longer than three years).  The research
   is complicated.  Popping the parts into the case, well that is
   easy.
3) As I mentioned before (here maybe?) the number of available
   options is not as big as some people may think.  A lot of the
   choice is simply a repackaging of components from a small number
   of manufacturers.  In other cases, a several brand names will be
   sold by one company.

And, as a side not, I do not find the price difference between self
built and prepackaged systems to be substantial.  I suspect that most
of these cheap home built systems use second hand parts (may they be
from the owner's existing system, or purchased used); use existing
software, even pirated software (eg. one legitimate copy for multiple
home computers), and so forth.  You also have to take care of your own
warranties (ie. OEM warranties are often from the date of manufacture,
you have to send off the hardware yourself, etc.).

> On a monopoly market you don't have to choose, and this can be an
> advantage to some people who find it hard to choose.

I once read a (bad) science fiction story which claimed that avoiding
decisions involved a decision in itself.  That is not to trivialize
what you said because it is clearly more difficult to make a choice
when you have similar options abound.  Some people (even in the Wintel
world) will stick with a particular brand name.  That is not terribly
different from an Apple user buying from Apple simply because it is
Apple.

At the other extreme you have users who spend the time building their
own machines (or hiring somebody to do it for them).  While I can see
some people going to great lengths to get the best quality hardware,
the practice of building your own machine is so common that I am left
to assume that the vast majority do not put proper research into their
purchasing decisions.  There are, after all, about a dozen components
which you have to concern yourself with.

> Also if your needs agrees well with what the Mac provides, then of
> course the Mac is a good choice!!!

My 'needs' are probably somewhat simple compared to most users.  OTOH,
it may simply be that I buy into fewer gimmicky toys.  (Why are 3D
video cards required for people who are interested in web browsing,
word processing, and email?)

> Different people have different needs, so we should be happy there are
> different computers out there.

No, we should expect there to be other computers out there.  If there
is only on option (may it be Wintel or Macintosh) in a market as large
as the PC world is, something is gravely wrong.  Some of us would
argue that one company having such a dominant position in such are
large market is a bad sign (ie. Microsoft).

>> Or are you going to continue bad mouthing Apple for unsubstantiated
>> facts simply because they abandoned to Apple II for a platform which
>> has survived 18 years and had been mimicked by many different vendors?
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Could you elaborate more on this?  I believed Apple agressively sued
> anyone who cloned the Mac, and that's why we have no Mac clones.

Mimick does not imply compatibility with software in this case, but
wetware.  A number of companies jumped on the GUI bandwagon thanks
to Apple popularising the GUI.  To name a few products: GEM, GEOS,
Amiga's OS, BeOS, OS/2, Windows.  The GUI elements in all of these
systems (except maybe Amiga, which I have no experience with) are
quite similar.  Many of these elements clearly came from Apple's
offering.

> Apple even tried to sue Microsoft once for "look and feel
> infringements" with Windows -- fortunately Apple lost that case.
> Which is as it should be -- GUI's should not be a monopoly market.

A lot of people are against software patents, either fully or they
will pick and choose.  While companies probably deserve some property
rights, Apple was clearly wrong in several respects: they neither
created nor (does it seem clear that they) licensed the GUI from
other sources, and Windows was not a straight forward duplicate of
the Macintosh operating system nor the GUI.

The only problem that I have with the software patents debate is
that the people who are against these patents tend to point to very
popular technologies: in your case the GUI, others to a particular
compression scheme.  Well, patents are not a popularity contest.  If
you are against software patents, you should be looking at less
common technologies as well.

Byron.