The MacBook Air Isn't Revolutionary
From Nathan Hemming in response to The
Top 11 Reasons to Choose Macs over PCs:
Frank states:
"Apple and all the PC suppliers out there have plenty
of laptop models with DVD drives built in. Will they all someday lose
the drive in favor of lower weight? Apple is betting that they will -
and that the time to start selling this way is now. Apple is the (only)
company with both the thinking and capability of delivering this
future."
Several PC vendors already have (and did offer, before the MacBook Air was introduced)
ultraportable PC laptops with no built-in optical drive. Lenovo's
ThinkPad X61 is an example; it requires connection to a "media base"
that has a built-in DVD player. HP already offers solid state disk
options (and has since October) for its tablet PCs.
The MacBook Air is overall a great package - for those who want the
most portable Mac. Will the MacBook Air sell? Certainly. Aside from its
thin form factor, is it "revolutionary"? In my opinion, not as
much.
Nathan,
The MacBook Air is revolutionary in offering a 13.3"
display and a full-sized keyboard in a thin, 3 pound notebook computer.
It won't win praise from those who want or need a small footprint
laptop, but that evidently isn't the market Apple is pursuing this time
around.
Dan
Macs Don't More Costly than Windows PCs
From Jeff Drake:
I've posted this on the 'net many a time, but I have to respectfully
disagree with your repeated assertion that Macs are more expensive than
other PCs. Perfect example: my former boss, a young accountant that
inherited the company when Daddy got sick, was all about Dell. Dell
this, Dell that. Dell makes a cheap machine so everybody's going to use
Dell. Then he learned that I could use Flash, but my Dell wasn't fast
enough. He asked for a proposal from me and, knowing my preference,
even suggested I price a couple of Macs.
I wound up getting a brand new Power Mac G5.
Why?
It was over $2,200 less than a comparable Dell. Neither the
comptroller nor the accountant cum president could argue with that.
Just my 2¢.
Jeff
Jeff,
A lot of shortsighted buyers only look at the price in
the ad - before they add enough RAM, a bigger hard drive, a better
display, a more powerful version of Windows, a better video card, etc.
Comparing the Mac mini to low-end Windows PCs or the MacBook to low-end
Windows notebooks, and Apple doesn't compete on price. Put together a
Mac Pro system - well, that's a whole 'nother story.
Dan
Macs Worth the Price
From Tyler Walraven:
This goes along with number 3: Macs seem more expensive, but it's an
investment. I got a new iMac for Christmas; it was $1,200, but it will
last me at least through college - if not longer....
Thank You,
Tyler Walraven
Tyler,
Right you are. Macs last a lot longer than Windows
PCs, or at least Mac users tend to use their computers a lot longer
than Windows users keep running theirs. May workhorse computer is a
Mirror Drive Door Power Mac
G4 that was introduced in 2002. Same CPUs and video card, added a
couple USB 2.0 cards, upgraded RAM to 2 GB, and put in a bigger
hard drive. And it still suits my needs as well as the day I bought it
- used.
Dan
Disagreement and Misinformation
From "citb":
I just wanted to respond to a few of your points. In some cases I
think you may be misinformed; in others I simply disagree.
On point #11: Yes, I do want more choices. Sorry if you don't. On
that point we disagree. But where you are wrong is in thinking that
there is any lack of freeware for the Mac. In fact there is plenty of
freeware out there, and more of it coming out every day - you just have
to know where to look (try using phrases like "Mac freeware" or "OS X
freeware" in Google) - there are entire sites devoted to it. The
interesting part is that for the most part, Mac freeware just works,
and works the way you expect it to - I suspect because it's much easier
to program for the Mac than for the PC or Linux. So you don't see much
of the "crapware", as you call it. By the way, I've been using
computers since the 1970s (started out on a PDP-10 mainframe), and I
have never used MS Office, and doubt I ever will (though I do confess
to having used WordPad on a Windows box when I needed a bit more than
plain text format).
On point #10: If people wanted an IT department, we'd all still be
using dumb terminals, not home computers. You may like a particular
piece of software while I would hate it, and why should I be forced to
use your choice rather than mine? Case in point: There are several very
good RSS newsreaders for the Mac, and I tried every one of them and
didn't like any of them, because they wouldn't let me read the news the
way I wanted to, which is scrolling through the full text of the
articles (not just headlines, and not abbreviated summaries). Finally
someone mentioned that you could configure Vienna to work that way, and
now I'm a happy camper. But maybe you like only seeing headlines and
having to click on each headline to see the article - if so, I am sure
I would not be happy with your choice of newsreader. Freedom of choice
is a wonderful thing, and I'm always suspicious of the motives of
people who want to limit it.
On point #9: This is the first valid reason on your list, IMHO. And
I suspect it's one reason that many former Windows users are now
considering Macs.
You're also right on points 8 and 7.
Point #6 is a matter of opinion. Steve may be trying to project a
cool image, but deep in his heart I suspect he's as much of a
capitalist as Bill.
No comment on point #5; I'm not actually sure what the point was.
Remember that Microsoft doesn't make hardware, so it's kind of a flawed
comparison. One thing I don't like about Apple is that they try to make
it as difficult as possible for you to build your own box and then run
OS X on it. Why would I want to do that? Because, lets say that a
power supply fails. On a PC, you just yank the old one out, slide in a
new one, and you are back in business, probably for under $20 (or a bit
more if you want a fan that doesn't sound like a small jet aircraft
engine). On an Apple, depending on the model, it's almost certainly
going to be a lot harder to get a replacement, and it will cost more.
And worse yet, again depending on the model, you may have to surrender
your computer to the Apple Store employees, and then they have access
to your data. In the past I've always fixed my own computers (even if
that meant replacing motherboard and CPU), and it has never been a
major expense. So I really hope that Macs are as reliable as their
proponents claim they are.
On your point #4: This is the one that inspired me to write. You say
"It will be a sad day when everyone wants to have a Mac" but then, let
me think, what was the title of your blog post again? Oh, yes: "The Top
11 Reasons to Choose Macs over PCs." Therein lies the problem - you,
like many other Mac users, have become Mac evangelists. You tell your
friends, family, and anyone else who will listen how great the Mac is.
I'll bet you don't prequalify those people as to income, either. And
please keep in mind that, contrary to your assertion, a Mac doesn't
necessarily cost more. You can get a Mac mini for around $600 (US) and it
will run rings around similarly priced PCs, plus it is so much smaller
than the typical PC that it amazes me that they aren't selling better
(I would say that's lack of marketing on Apple's part).
I am not one of those high income folks that you associate with Mac
owners, but I was basically talked into getting a Mac mini by my son,
who knew that I don't like machines that tie you to a built-in display.
He is like so many Mac owners, he talks his Mac up and wishes everyone
in the family had one. So your premise is false - the cost of the Mac
doesn't weed out people who can't afford it, but they may buy a used
Mac or a Mac mini. Sorry to break your heart, but your country club is
opening up to the great unwashed, albeit slowly. :-)
If Mac owners really want an "exclusive" club, then they should
never talk about their Mac to someone whose income isn't in the same
level of the troposphere as their own. And Apple should drop the TV ads
(at least in prime time) and advertise exclusively in publications that
cater to the rich. The fact that they don't do that indicates to me
that they would like to replace the PC, but haven't yet figured out how
to build a machine to their high standards, sell it at a popular price
point, and still make money. Which brings me back to my comment on
Point #6 - Steve may not be trying to come off as a capitalist, but
Apple's pricing indicates that they aren't in the business for entirely
altruistic reasons.
On your point #3: One reason I was even willing to try a Mac was
because my son assured me that if I really hated it after a month or
two, I could probably get nearly what I'd paid for it on
eBay. So, for
now at least, I suspect this one is right on.
Point #2 is your personal opinion again. I wouldn't want a MacBook
Air - I'd really hate not having the internal DVD, and I'd also really
hate paying that kind of money for what is essentially a laptop
computer. Be careful not to project your opinions onto all users. I
would only buy a new Mac for the same reason I always bought (actually,
built) a new PC - that would be if it failed to operate and the problem
was deeper than just a blown power supply, and/or it was becoming
obsolete, by which I mean it could not play the latest media formats
without all kinds of choppiness. But actually, you missed the real
point here - a lot of people buy new PCs because their current one is
loaded with spyware or "Trojan horse" programs that eat up all the CPU
cycles, and they don't have sense enough to get a program like Spybot
Search & Destroy or Spyware Blaster (both free) to get rid of the
spyware. Many of these PCs could be restored to like-new performance if
the crapware was removed, or failing that, the hard drive reformatted
and the OS installed from scratch. But on the Mac, such problems are
virtually nonexistent. So it might be better to say that many people
buy new PCs because they don't know how to clean the crap off their old
one, while Mac users simply don't have that particular motivation.
And your Point #1 is simply a summary - and is flawed for the same
reasons I stated under Point #4. You can be fairly cheap and still own
a Mac - we aren't talking "$200 low-end special on the day after
Thanksgiving if you wait in line nearly a full day and night in the
freezing cold" cheap, but we are talking comparably priced when
compared to PCs of similar abilities cheap. The Mac mini is a great
little low-end box, and you can use your existing monitor, keyboard and
mouse if you wish (you may need a cheap USB-to-PS2 adapter, but those
are super cheap on eBay these days).
Anyway, I just think you have the idea that Mac owners comprise some
sort of exclusive group, and while that may have been true prior to the
introduction of Windows Vista, I think you will find that now a lot of
former PC owners are buying Macs, and yes, they do have different
expectations than some of the former group of Mac owners. Personally, I
was at first appalled to see people selling small utility programs for
as much as $40, when free equivalents had been available on both the
Windows and (in many cases) Linux platforms for years. Then I
discovered the Mac freeware sites and found that, in fact, there are
free alternatives for most of those programs. Some of the Mac "purists"
may shun the freeware options because they may not quite have the Mac
"look and feel" copied precisely (or maybe just because they are so
rich that money is no object), but I've personally tried many Mac
freeware programs and found that most are quite good, and not nearly as
buggy as some of the freeware you find in the Windows world.
I think that Vista is causing many Windows users to consider other
options, and all that Mac vs. PC advertising is paying off for Apple.
So the assumptions about Mac owners that may have been true a year or
two ago are not nearly as true today!
citb,
You're on the money about freeware. I use NetNewsWire
Lite, TextWrangler, Safari, Firefox, and KompoZer daily - all free.
There's also a lot of good shareware that's worth the price, like
SuperDuper!, TextSoap, and GyazMail (my preferred email client).
Having worked in a business setting, I understand why
IT departments need to limit choices: There's nothing harder than
having to support three different word processing programs made by
three different companies, as just one example. People expect IT guys
to be software gurus, when in reality most of us are hardware and
operating system (and networking) geeks. We just want to make things
work; we don't want to teach you how to use Word or Pages.
In the private setting, there's nothing like having
lots of choices. NetNewsWire Lite is a great RSS reader that meets my
needs perfectly. I don't use Safari or Mail heavily; they're my second
choice programs that I use enough to keep familiar with. Word?
Puh-lease! I have it, hate it, but sometimes it's the only program than
can properly display a Word document.
I know why Apple makes it hard for the Hackintosh
community: The company makes and sells computers. Apple once tried
licensing Macintosh clones, and it nearly destroyed the company as the
other clones easily undercut Apple on price. They won't make that
mistake again, and their efforts to not make it easy to hack OS X
for non-Apple PCs makes sense. Were Apple to sell a freestanding OS,
they would be asked to support more hardware configurations than anyone
can imagine.
Thanks to a healthy secondhand Mac market, almost
anyone can afford a Mac. It's surprising how often users have been
converted by OS X on a 5-year-old Mac. I personally wish Apple
would broaden its market by introducing a boring desktop Mac with
expansion slots for under $400 - and I'm not holding my breath.
Mac users are a very inclusive group, covering every
income level and political persuasion. We use Macs because we want the
better tool, and the Mac experience is more important to us than CPU
speed, top-end video cards, or other bragging rights hardware
specs.
Dan
11 Reasons Are Mostly Wrong
From Sammy Fischer:
okay . . . nice article . . .
just a few things to notice :
11. "Good or bad, it is the right choice, and having other choices
is nice but not required." That pretty much summarize the Mac
attitude: "I don't care if it's good. As long as it's from Apple, I'd
eat shit."
10. "You get iLife programs, a trial game, and a trial version of MS
Office, but that is about it." Talk about hidden costs.
9. Point 9 sounds nice. As I'm a Linux user (oh . . . my
63-year-old mom and my 9-year-old niece use Linux too btw. and seems
very happy with it), I don't have problems with extra copies.
8. Indeed. It's also a good way to force people to upgrade and spend
more money.
7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this dual boot thing something
you have to buy? Oh well . . . Linux here, so dual
booting has been around for a few decades anyway :P
6. Actually, they are both dorks . . . the only difference
is that one wears a black sweater and the other one glasses.
5. See "how to force people to update and spend more money".
4. "Better" is a very subjective word. As far as I experienced, Mac
users seem to people who don't care whether the machine they're using
is indeed fast, or whether it's actually worth the money they spent on
it, and will gladly tell you their computer is faster than any
PC, even when faced with proof that it's not true. They'll also embrace
the "OS X is great and extremely innovative" stance when faced
with, for example, Compiz running on an old PC. Basically, their point
of view is "expensive = good / cheap/free = crap" On second thought,
you might be right... They are better customers. A good customer
is a customer who will spend money no matter whether it's worth it.
3. I agree . . . but that's linked to the horrendous and unrealistic
prices of Macs in the first place.
2. The MacBook Air sure
does look nice . . . too bad it's all it does. As to PC users
upgrading . . . well . . . at least they have the
options to do so cheaply. "Worse, in my opinion, are those PC gamers
who'll spend thousands on the fastest PC just to play the latest game."
I have a 3-year-old computer, and it runs every game, except for an
heavily modded Oblivion and of course Crysis (but who cares about this
one???) very nicely. Believe it or not, the complexity of games didn't
increase much in the last 2 or 3 years. Besides . . . "spend
thousands"? We're talking about PCs here. Even a high-end grafic card,
which will make current games extremely playable, is at max around 700
Euros! But then: "To these people I say, Sony PlayStation - have you
heard of it. It doesn't even cost one grand, and you can play tons of
new games on your 61" HD TV. Get a clue and save your money for taking
a girl on a date." Let's get this straight . . . "Tons of
new games" . . . okay . . . so you're not
talking about the PS3 here . . . but then . . . "on
your 61" HD TV" . . . nah . . . can't be the PS2
neither . . . what the smegg are you talking about?
1. "Macs are fast"? Since when? (Comparing on the same price level
here) "If you want to be cheap, there are other products to buy, but if
you've got the cash, Macs are top notch". Actually, if you got the
cash, you're better buying a non-Mac machine for the same price, and
probably running Windows/Linux in dual boot. "have great design"
. . . I 'll grant you that . . . but my desktop
machine is underneath the table, where I never see it . . . I
want to work with my computer . . . not put it in a
display case. "The real reason why Macs are better. No bullshit about
security or stability that depend on what the person running the
machine does with software." . . . that's why I use Linux. At
least they don't have Safari based security breaches.
Oh well . . . probably not as good an article as I first
thought :P
bbye,
Sammy
Sammy,
You don't know what you're talking about, and your
caricature of Mac users is insulting.
11. There's a lot of good Mac software from Apple -
and a lot from other vendors. Microsoft. Adobe. Quark. Mozilla.
BareBones Software. And lots more. Mac users don't tend to blindly buy
or use a product just because Apple makes it.
7. Dual booting is new to Macs since Apple switched to
Intel CPUs two years ago. Before that it was impossible to run Windows
natively on a Mac. And Boot Camp comes free with Mac OS X 10.5;
there's no extra cost. The only cost is for Windows, if you want to run
it.
4. Mac users are more concerned with having a computer
that works well, gets out of the way when you're working, doesn't
require you to be a geek, and runs fast enough. Mac users typically
keep happily using their computers years longer than Windows users.
2. The MacBook Air not only looks nice, it's more
powerful than most ultralight Windows PCs. As for gaming in the PC
world, I have no idea how powerful a CPU and graphics card up-to-date
games require. The point is that most people buy computers to be
productive, not for entertainment.
1. Since when haven't Macs been fast? Who makes a more
powerful PC than the 8-core 3.2 GHz
Mac Pro? Who makes the fastest notebooks, even when they're running
Windows? Apple.
As far as "security breaches" are concerned, while
there are security issues with every operating system (Linux included),
there is no Mac malware in the wild.
Dan
Dan Knight wrote:
11. There's a lot of good Mac software from Apple -
and a lot from other vendors. Microsoft. Adobe. Quark. Mozilla.
BareBones Software. And lots more. Mac users don't tend to blindly buy
or use a product just because Apple makes it.
That's somehow not how I experienced it. But then . . .
that's a subjective issue.
7. Dual booting is new to Macs since Apple switched to
Intel CPUs two years ago. Before that it was impossible to run Windows
natively on a Mac. And Boot Camp comes free with Mac OS X 10.5; there's
no extra cost. The only cost is for Windows, if you want to run it.
Okay . . . my bad. As I said, I heard something about Boot Camp
being suddenly disabled after an upgrade and Apple asking people to buy
the soft.
4. Mac users are more concerned with having a computer
that works well, gets out of the way when you're working, doesn't
require you to be a geek, and runs fast enough. Mac users typically
keep happily using their computers years longer than Windows users.
How much of this longevity is due to the high costs associated with
Apple hardware? If you can get a newer faster computer running the
software you already have for 400 euros, and you happen to have them
ready, why not go for it. On the other hand, if it means investing 1000
euros or more, people will think twice.
2. The MacBook Air not only looks nice, it's more powerful than most
ultralight Windows PCs. As for gaming in the PC world, I have no idea
how powerful a CPU and graphics card up-to-date games require. The
point is that most people buy computers to be productive, not for
entertainment.
That's just plainly wrong. Compare what's comparable. Yes
. . . an eee or a Xo is definitely slower than a MacBook Air.
But for 1700 USD, you can get a hell of a portable computer running
Windows (and then install Linux on it :P . . . one
with an ethernet port, an optical drive, a faster processor
. . . You name it.
As for why most people buy computers for: write and receive emails,
write some word documents, maybe even use Excel a bit to make their
home accountancy, browse the Net, organize their music, perhaps even
watch DVDs. That's John Doe's profile, and those are all tasks that can
be done equally good on Mac, Win XP/Vista, or on an end-user friendly
Linux distro. No need to be a geek for either of them, but if they want
to do more without investing (much or any) money, then the Mac is the
obvious choice to avoid.
1. Since when haven't Macs been fast? Who makes a more
powerful PC than the 8-core 3.2 GHz Mac Pro? Who makes the fastest
notebooks, even when they're running Windows? Apple.
Care to give some sources?
As far as "security breaches" are concerned, while
there are security issues with every operating system (Linux included),
there is no Mac malware in the wild.
Indeed, every OS is vulnerable one way or the other . . .
Macs are being targeted more and more often lately though (check
Slashdot).
Just to clarify the issue: I don't hate Macs. Personally, I don't
like Macs because I like flexibility and extensibility in an OS, and
that's exactly what Linux is providing me with. The Mac's philosophy
seems to be "either you do it our way, or not at all" and that's a
complete turn off for me (ironically, Apple's marketing strategy seems
to be "be different", which is exactly what you can't be with a
Mac). But all in all, the hardware is okay and the design is indeed
very good looking. OS X, which I had to use quite a lot at
work, was neither easier nor harder to use than Windows XP or Gnome2.2.
Stuff was well executed, other stuff was lacking in comparison with the
other windows managers/OS's. What I hate though, is the arrogant
fanboyish attitude of Mac users. Somehow it feels like they need to
compensate for the money they spent by trying to prove their HW/OS is
better, when it clearly is not. It's not worse than any other
HW/OS, albeit it is a lot more expensive. And in IT, expensive is not
always better.
bbye,
Sammy
Sammy,
11. Nothing subjective about it. Over the past two
decades studies have shown that the average Mac owner uses more
software programs than Windows users do.
7. Apple allowed OS X 10.4 users to download and use
the beta version of Boot Camp for free; Boot Camp would be part of Mac
OS X 10.5 when it shipped. Apple warned up front that the beta would
expire, and you can't use Boot Camp to create a Windows partition with
Mac OS X 10.4.11, the final revision of OS X 10.4.
4. Macs have never been that much more expensive than
PCs, but they have traditionally been better designed for the long
haul. Good design and quality control means that lots of Macs from the
late 80s and early 90s are still in use. A better built tool is simply
going to last longer, and you do pay a small premium for quality.
2. The only "competition" from Dell is the XPM M1330,
which has a 13.3" display, is up to 1.43 inches thick, and weighs a
pound more than the MacBook Air. That's heavy for an ultraportable, but
it does include an optical drive, 2 USB ports, FireWire, and ethernet.
It's competition for the regular consumer MacBook, not the thin
Air.
As I said, many of the ultraportable notebooks are
slower than the MBA's 1.6 GHz, especially the lighter ones. See
Is MacBook Air Worth the Money? Five Slim Laptops Face Off on
Gizmodo for details. We don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel
to find slower or heavier "competition".
1. As for computing power, the 40 MHz Macintosh IIfx (1989) smoked past
the 32 MHz 386 PCs of that era, and Apple's move to the G3 processor in Nov. 1997 gave
it the fastest desktop and notebook computers on the market. I don't
know of anything with more power than the 8-core 3.2 GHz Mac Pro, and
PC World declared the 2.4 GHz MacBook
Pro
the world's fastest notebook computer running Windows. And one week
later Apple added a 2.6 GHz build-to-order option for the fastest
Windows laptop.
Time and again the media cries wolf - another Mac
security vulnerability. And every time, we find that it's just some
proof of concept malware in a lab. Mac OS X has been on the market for
almost 7 years, and it has less malware than the Classic Mac OS ever
did. That had about 70 viruses and the like. For OS X, the number
remains zero despite reports that malware authors are really truly
honestly going to target Macs.
Another Mac advantage, which IT should love, is lower
cost of ownership. Macs don't need antivirus and anti-malware software
sucking up CPU cycles and constantly downloading new definitions. Mac
OS X, which is now certified as Unix, is rock solid, Apple
hardware tends to outlast PC hardware, and study after study concludes
that while Macs may cost more to buy at times, the long term costs in
money and support time are lower. As a former one-man IT department who
supported 80-some Macs in 3 locations, that's important.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
