Re: PC or Mac?

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <slrna5jbl9.21.byron@b60z27hbb464i.ab.hsia.telus.net>,
Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill <byron@b60z27hbb464i.ab.hsia.telus.net> wrote:

>> 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.

Will they run Mac software?  <g>

Suppose I like Mac software but think the Mac hardware is too expensive,
too ugly, or whatever.  What are my options?  Note that I still want to
run my Mac software....

Not all computers are alike -- they're not like e.g. CD or DVD players
which share one common standard.

>> 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 ;).

Trying to oput together parts from different generations of hardware
within the same case may indeed be somewhat difficult.

>2) I treat the longevity of a computer as being an important feature.

:-) ....computer retailers are naturally uninterested in longevity
of computers, because they want to sell.....

>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.

True, however you do have more than one alternative.

>And, as a side not, I do not find the price difference between self
>built and prepackaged systems to be substantial.

Probably true - the major advantage of building your own is that you
can customize it, and also that you get so familiar with it that you're
better prepared to repair it if there should be some trouble - that
too can save you some costs in the long run.

>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.).

True - but you ought to have warranties on the parts you buy.  But
naturally the home builder takes responsibility of what he builds.

>> 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.

It is different whether you buy one brand because you've had previous
good experience with it, or whether you buy it because it's the only
available brand.

>> 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?)

Who told you so?  I sometimes browse the web, write email and do
word processing even in text mode, i.e. no graphics at all!

>> 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.

There once was:  back in the early 1980'es, we had the Apple II,
the Commodore-64 and Vic-20 and PET, the Altair and IMSAI, the
Sorcerer, the North Star Horizon, the Durango, and a lot of others
I don't remember.  Yep, you had more choices back then, but first
these systems cost an arm and a leg, and second they didn't
communicate well with one another.

>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).

I agree that the Microsoft monopoly is a Bad Thing.  Fortunately
that monopoly is not total.  There are some alternatives even for
cheap home computers: the Mac, and Linux/FreeBSD.

>>> 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.

..and Apple in turn "borrowed" the GUI idea from Xerox...

The GUI was obviously a good idea, that's why it spread to other
computers.

In turn, Apple has borrowed some other ideas because they were
good:  expansion slots (missing in early Mac's), IDE harddisks
(cheaper), and the PC diskette format (good because then you can
transfer diskettes between machines).

>> 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.

Was the GUI ever patented?



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se
WWW:     http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
         http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/