PC vs MAC

[Ducky]

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me. I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen, and majority rules.

I don't know how I feel about the "majority rules part" but personally it is irrelevant what the majority is. If you were in the minority, and they were sending you a file, they should make sure what they send you is readable to your standards. That's just good service.

 

[Terry]

majority rules.

eep

 

[tkingdoll]

I don't know how I feel about the "majority rules part" but personally it is irrelevant what the majority is. If you were in the minority, and they were sending you a file, they should make sure what they send you is readable to your standards. That's just good service.

Agreed. And it just so happens that my standards are the standards of 90% of the computing world as well - which is what I mean by majority rules.

As fun as it is to Microsoft-bash, the simple fact remains that MOST computer users are not technical people, do not customise their kit, and just want something they can use. My mum, his boss, her daughter, etc. Just regular Joes who will never understand or need to get to the level of knowledge of most of the people in this thread. They just want to write a document or surf the net or make a spreadsheet. And mainstream products allow them to do this satisfactorily. And they have such massive market penetration, it's essential that non-mainstream product users ensure their output is compatible.

 

[Ducky]

Agreed. And it just so happens that my standards are the standards of 90% of the computing world as well - which is what I mean by majority rules.

As fun as it is to Microsoft-bash, the simple fact remains that MOST computer users are not technical people, do not customise their kit, and just want something they can use. My mum, his boss, her daughter, etc. Just regular Joes who will never understand or need to get to the level of knowledge of most of the people in this thread. They just want to write a document or surf the net or make a spreadsheet. And mainstream products allow them to do this satisfactorily. And they have such massive market penetration, it's essential that non-mainstream product users ensure their output is compatible.

In every instance I see of mac vs. pc bashing it comes down to people not fully educated in the other product (or even their own!) In fact, you are right in that most users are not technically proficient enough to know what they can do with their own machine. Rhetoric like Claus' mac bashing and those stupid mac commercials is nothing but perpetuating myths. OS is nothing more than brand choosing these days. All of the platforms available today have the functionality to do whatever a user needs to do with a computer.

I personally think there needs to be more computer education in schools. Not just how to use one platform, but how to use them all. Like science education I think any graduating 12th grader (or whatever the equivalent is across the world) should not only have been through the sciences and math, but programming and computer basics for all platforms. I programmed pascal on an IBM PS/2 in high school for one semester, and while I went on to do IT work both for microsoft platforms but for unix ones also (the day job that paid for Fowlsound Productions) the schooling I got in computers was crap. Of course in high school I had a Macintosh LC2 at home, and a PC at school. Apples weren't even in my school, which is odd considering how hard apple pushed to the education sector in the 80s.

OS bashing is just as stupid as Ford vs. Chevy arguments.

 

[progressquest]

Rhetoric like Claus' mac bashing and those stupid mac commercials is nothing but perpetuating myths. OS is nothing more than brand choosing these days.

Oh man, I am so glad that a mac user pointed out the stupidity of those stupid commercials based on stupid stupidness. Man they make me mad. Sometimes I laugh, but mostly I get mad.

I personally think there needs to be more computer education in schools. Not just how to use one platform, but how to use them all.

Perhaps you mean all the major OS's. Mac, Windows, and one or perhaps two distros of Linux. You do realize that there are actually (real time) operating systems that are designed to run on microcontrollers. Without a standard input/output system, this may prove a little beyond the average non-CS major in college, and certainly beyond the average high-schooler. But, the point is still good.

 

[Ducky]

Oh man, I am so glad that a mac user pointed out the stupidity of those stupid commercials based on stupid stupidness. Man they make me mad. Sometimes I laugh, but mostly I get mad.

Yeah those commercials are just plain irritating.

Perhaps you mean all the major OS's. Mac, Windows, and one or perhaps two distros of Linux. You do realize that there are actually (real time) operating systems that are designed to run on microcontrollers. Without a standard input/output system, this may prove a little beyond the average non-CS major in college, and certainly beyond the average high-schooler. But, the point is still good.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to user desktop ready OS releases. Including Windows XP (or Vista), OSX, DesktopBSD, FC, Ubuntu etc. For the purpose of this discussion I don't see a need to include microcontroller OS's and server OS's.

 

[tsg]

I can see people using whatever they want. You're a Mac person? Great! You're a *nix person? Great! But looking over this thread I see a few people talking about their PC dual booting with XP as the second operating system or having some XP system somewhere for certain apps. And not just here, but I hear about dual booting all the time. If the other OSs give you what you want, why the dual boot? That just tells me that you still need Windows to some extent. If you didn't, the you wouldn't have the dual boot. Until that need is replaced Microsoft is still selling you a copy of their OS so you didn't really save anything. Not trying to be pro-MS or belittle the other OSs, but I just wanted to point out that it's the need that's making them money, and until you can relieve that need you are still supporting old Bill.

Not mine. The system I am posting from right now has never had any version of Windows running on it. I bought components, built it myself and threw Slackware on it. Never had any problems with it and it is going on 3 years old now.

There is a point to be made about some software available for Windows not having a useable analog in Linux. However, the list is getting shorter everyday. I can even load my iPod from Linux.

 

[tsg]

Linuces?

Linuxen.

 

[tsg]

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me.

What Terry is suggesting is meant to address this very issue. In many cases the problem of incompatible file formats is not because of lack of effort on the minorities' part but a lack of disclosure on the majority's part. While it may not be applicable to your particular case, some Mac (and Linux) software won't write Window's apps formats not because they decided not to do it, but because the information needed to do it isn't available.

Supporting open file formats makes it easier for an application programmer to include those formats, with significantly fewer errors, regardless of what OS the software runs on. If the "industry standard" software used an open file format then your clients could send you files from any OS and you'd be able to read them and we wouldn't be bitching about these damned minority OS users.

I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen,

This I agree with.

and majority rules.

This scares me.

 

[tkingdoll]

This scares me.

You live in a democracy. Don't be scared. Perhaps you are confusing it with majoritarianism?

 

[Terry]

You live in a democracy. Don't be scared. Perhaps you are confusing it with majoritarianism?

representative democracy with a constitution is a far cry from "majority rules".

 

[Starthinker]

I dual boot because my kids like Windows and we have a huge library of games. To play games is the only reason I boot XP an that machine. Games are the specific software that ties me to Windows. I suppose you wonder why I don't just use Windows for the regular stuff? Certainly it can do what I want, I just can't stand using it.

When I want to get something done I don't want to boot up and see pop up balloons reminding to update my AV software. I don't want it to do anything other than what I want it to. I honestly don't get that experience in Windows. I use XP at work regularly and frequently find myself pleading with it to just do what I asked it to.

Another reason I don't like using Windows is that it isn't very powerful out of the box. To outfit a Windows box with software similar to what open source I use would cost several thousand dollars. I don't have that kind of money and refuse to bootleg. With Linux I get a system that does what I need, the way I'd like it to and a huge collection of very useful software at a price I can afford.

I also just like playing around with this stuff.

That's my reason for dual booting. I'm sure there are others. Of five PCs in the house three dual boot and two are Linux only.

I'm not saying anything against dual booting, just so many people say they use linux to save money but then they spend the money on Windows anyway, so they didn't save any money. Once games (and other apps) run on Linux, then the need for Windows will evaporate for many. Gaming and some business apps are the biggest reasons I hear for dual booting. Take away that need then Microsoft will have to compete to sell their OS. They may listen to their users then.

 

[tkingdoll]

representative democracy with a constitution is a far cry from "majority rules".

I'm pretty sure it's the same. At least, my understanding of it is that, anyway.

 

[Terry]

if the majority says I have to worship Jeebus... I don't, however much the majority wants me too. What am I missing here?

 

[geni]

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me. I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen, and majority rules.

But Fowl has already confirmed that if the file won't open, the Mac user is at fault because the file would open if he did something different.

Do PC users send you XCFs?

 

[tsg]

I'm not saying anything against dual booting, just so many people say they use linux to save money but then they spend the money on Windows anyway, so they didn't save any money.

Of the vast majority of people I know who use linux, "it's cheaper" is the bottom of the list of reasons why they do. Perhaps you are confusing "free" with "cheap"? As they say, free as in speech, not free as in beer (aka libre as apposed to gratis).

 

[tkingdoll]

if the majority says I have to worship Jeebus... I don't, however much the majority wants me too. What am I missing here?

OK, that's not what 'majority rule' means, politically. I used the phrase 'majority rules' rather flippantly in my Mac/PC post (which is where I think the confusion/alarm has come from when I didn't mean it politically) to illustrate the fact that any minority software user HAS to comply with majority software user's needs (whether they want to or not) IF they want to interact with the majority software users (for example, in business, a graphic designer sending a file to a marketing company). They are welcome to not make their output compatible, but they won't get paid. So in that sense, it's not a choice, no. If 90% of people are using Word, then the 10% who don't need to make sure Word users can open their files, or lose that audience. You could say that the 90% should make sure their software can open the 10%'s files, but in business, as I say, (the) majority rules (the market). What's the business case for catering to that 10%? Microsoft don't care, and neither do most of their users.

But politically, at risk of a total derail, majority rule is a function of equal rights, which you set out before your actual vote. If you don't, and the rights of the minority are trampled, that's majoritarianism. It has nothing to do with this thread, though

But I will go back to my Politics books and check. Always allow for the possibility that I am insane.

 

[Rasmus]

You could say that the 90% should make sure their software can open the 10%'s files, but in business, as I say, (the) majority rules (the market). What's the business case for catering to that 10%?

A 10% niche, and you have to ask what the case is?

This I *really* don't understand. It is easy for a business to cater not only to 10% or to 90% but 99.5% without much effort. So why not just do that?

Also, I think that "industry standard" is a bad argument when a user might just have a very good reason to avoid using that format. (MS Word and footnotes. come to mind, or a ridiculous restriction to just a few thousand rows of data in Excel ...)

 

[tkingdoll]

A 10% niche, and you have to ask what the case is?

This I *really* don't understand. It is easy for a business to cater not only to 10% or to 90% but 99.5% without much effort. So why not just do that?

Also, I think that "industry standard" is a bad argument when a user might just have a very good reason to avoid using that format. (MS Word and footnotes. come to mind, or a ridiculous restriction to just a few thousand rows of data in Excel ...)

I was simplifying, but in Microsoft's case, what is the benefit for them to do the work? What is the 'much effort' you're talking about? Wouldn't they rather force minority software users into MS products because of a lack of compatibility?

By now, most people buy Office because it's compatible with what everyone else has. I need to buy a new Office suite for my PC and I'll be forking out for the MS product because I'm not about to start sending OpenOffice documents to clients. What's standard is what's expected.

 

[bigred]

Here's what I don't get. What is it about PC users that compels them to proclaim their hate of all things Mac whenever the slightest glimmer of an opportunity arises?

If I don't like the kind of shoes you're wearing, I won't buy a pair for myself. But I won't blog abouit how awful your shoes are and why no one should ever buy them. And I surely won't berate you for your selection.

PC folks. Be happy. You rule the world! You've got the marketshare! Celebrate and be happy with your earthly domination.

Some of us don't want to be like you. Please try to be OK with that. We're not going to take away your PCs. You are free to toil away on Windows/Vista to your heart's content.

We're simply not going to join you in that endeavor. We've got our own platform and we're happy with it. Very happy. Don't hate us because we're happy. Doing so leads us to believe that you're not happy. Actually, that you're not happy and can't stand the thought that we are happy. And that rather than joining us in our happiness, you're compelled to force your unhappiness on us.

Surely this impression is in error. But that's how it plays to us. OK, maybe that's just how it plays to me. Nevertheless...

Like I said: I just don't get it.

er the pot/kettle thing.

I'm sure they exist but I've rarely seen this. On the contrary, since both existed my experience has been quite the opposite.

I used to prefer PCs because (sick as this is) I liked the command line thing...I felt like I had a lot more control over my computer. Also I never cared for the menus and way Macs worked, even after I used them for awhile (although I could see advantages too). Plus Mac/Apples always seemed so far behind in terms of avail software, "upgradability" - geez they didn't even get into color monitors for a ridiculous amt of time.

Nowdays, I have no idea what the pros/cons of either are, frankly.