SillyDog701

[Mandrake]

That's exactly how Windows XP is developed. My grandmother, who had never used a PC before, got a new PC with XP Home edition on it from Dell, she is now happily surfing the Internet, scanning photos and sending them to people via email. While XP is powerful enough to deal with power users like myself. You can also much more customize the desktop in XP, with visual styles and logon screens, and boot screens. That kind of cutomization is not possible in Mac OS X.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (DJGM-i.net)

[Antony]

...
You can also much more customize the desktop in XP, with visual styles and logon screens, and boot screens. That kind of cutomization is not possible in Mac OS X.

Not possible?
check those out,
http://nick.id.au/images/ScreenGrab-08.11.2003.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~equusracin ... re%201.jpg

Most people just don't bother to do a full customisation, why? they don't need to. Simply the default is beautiful enough and damn good to use (hint: instuitive).

With Windows XP, if you check those desktop screenshot threads from MozillaZine, you will see, lots, lots of people trying to fake their Windows desktop to an OS X desktop. Some even installed a Dock.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)

[Mandrake]

Lovely? There are so many effects it would drag a machine with a new Nvidia or Ati video card and 512mb of ram down with all those damn useless effects. The first screenshot only has a few new icons and a wallpaper, that isn't customisation ! The second screenshot looks like rubbish. There is another good point - there is no way to revert to a classic interface is OS X, for people who just want to get on with their work, rather than looking at stupid dock effects all day. OS X isn't anywhere near as customizable as Windows XP, which features an advanced XML skinning engine. Let's not even begin to mention what Longhorn will be able to do in terms of customisation. In 5 minutes I did this to my old XP desktop, this is just the begining of what I could do:



Customizing in OS X would be much harder than in Windows XP, with Windows Blinds or Style XP. I'm sure there aren't THOUSANDS of visual styles, themes, icon sets, boot screens, login screens for free download to use with OS X. There are for Windows XP.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (DJGM-i.net)

[ryaxnb]

If Macs are so great, then why are there more Linux users than Mac users? In fact, more people use Windows 95 and Windows NT 4 - ancient operating systems, than people use Macs. In 1995 Apple Computer had revenue of around $11bn US, and over $400m US in profits. Now, Apple only has $6bn in revenue a year, and around $100m in profits a year, they have lost customers big time! Everyone remembers the financial crisis at Apple in 1996/1997 - that makes me believe a Mac is not a good investment. What happens if Apple has another financial crisis? Not very re-assuring to me.

There are tons of Mac myths. If your new idea is so great, then why isn't everyone doing it? Please look at xvsxp.com. They show you why. Macs are better. Oh brother. Macs have 7% market share, Apple is making good profits, the future looks bright, Apple has millions of reserve money, Macs have 9-10% user share. What happens if MS had another financial crisis? They had one before, you know.
There are "experts" that use Windows. They convince sheep. Aaah. That is the stupidest argument in the book. Look at how it is better, not how many people are using it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/103u (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/100

[ryaxnb]

That's exactly how Windows XP is developed. My grandmother, who had never used a PC before, got a new PC with XP Home edition on it from Dell, she is now happily surfing the Internet, scanning photos and sending them to people via email. While XP is powerful enough to deal with power users like myself. You can also much more customize the desktop in XP, with visual styles and logon screens, and boot screens. That kind of cutomization is not possible in Mac OS X.

No it is not. XP has convoluted steps in some areas. Look at xvsxp.com. Stop ignoring my references. Windows XP also forces advanced users to use wizards or get third-party software. Extract files? Wizard. CD Burning? W/o TPS*, wizard required. Photo prints? W/O TPS, wizard required. Look at xvsxp.com.
*TPS = Third Party Software.
Volume does not necessarily indicate quality. There are lots of quality themes for OS X. Besides, how many users theme their system?
Update: Theming a system is not hard. What made you think that?
1. Install ShapeShifter using the easy Installer.
2. Download a theme from resexcellence, maxthemes, swiz's area, carbon's area, etc.
3. Double-click the theme icon.
Now, just quit and restart the programs to update them with the new theme. Why, I'm using the Rhapsodized theme as I type.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/103u (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/100

[Antony]

The second screenshot looks like rubbish.

I was showing you that you can give the OS X a new old day's feeling, just debating the personal teast.

You missed the points. One, Mac OS X can have a huge make over if they really wish to. Two, most Mac OS X don't bother to tweak their Macs to Windows interface, (unlike Windows users trying to make their interface Aqua)
Also in Mac OS X, the interface is beautiful, you don't need to perform a full facial reconstruction as many Windows people do, not even a plastic surgery; just some touch up will do.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)

[Mandrake]

Just briefly (A more lengthy reply will follow later)

7% Market share? Where do you get your innaccurate information? I'm getting mine straight from Google, and since so many people use Google, these results are fair and equitable.

September 2003 Results (Google's most recent data)
One year earlier, September 2002 Results

In September 2002, Macs accounted for 5% of all Operating Systems in use, now in September 2003 only 3% use a Mac - this is a reduction of 40% over one year! Windows XP, In September 2002, had 20% market share, now in September 2003, one year later, Windows XP has 34% - an increase of 18%! When Google releases it's end of year data, Windows XP will have gone up even more!

They may have had a financial crisis before, but in the past ten years, Microsoft's revenue and profits have risen considerably. Millions? Microsoft has $50bn USD in the bank. The profits are piddly in comparison to Microsoft, they recorded rougly $8bn in revenue last quater, and roughly $2bn in profits. 25% of their revenue. By comparison, Apple recored revenue of $1.7bn USD, with a profit of $29m USD - that's roughly between 1 and 2% of revenue. Pretty poxy in comparison, eh?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (DJGM-i.net)

[ryaxnb]

Just briefly (A more lengthy reply will follow later)

7% Market share? Where do you get your innaccurate information? I'm getting mine straight from Google, and since so many people use Google, these results are fair and equitable.

September 2003 Results (Google's most recent data)
One year earlier, September 2002 Results

In September 2002, Macs accounted for 5% of all Operating Systems in use, now in September 2003 only 3% use a Mac - this is a reduction of 40% over one year! Windows XP, In September 2002, had 20% market share, now in September 2003, one year later, Windows XP has 34% - an increase of 18%! When Google releases it's end of year data, Windows XP will have gone up even more!

They may have had a financial crisis before, but in the past ten years, Microsoft's revenue and profits have risen considerably. Millions? Microsoft has $50bn USD in the bank. The profits are piddly in comparison to Microsoft, they recorded rougly $8bn in revenue last quater, and roughly $2bn in profits. 25% of their revenue. By comparison, Apple recored revenue of $1.7bn USD, with a profit of $29m USD - that's roughly between 1 and 2% of revenue. Pretty poxy in comparison, eh?

You're even more annoying. Let me express my anger.
Thank you.
That article is false. Apple's total market share is 3%. They have a total user share of about 9 or 10%. And their market share is 7%, not counting servers, which is why my info differs.
What makes you think Apple is going down? They're having some of their most profitable quarters for a long time. Profits are going up, sales are good, they've got 30% of the music player market and 60% of the music store market, they're selling almost a million songs a day, they're top in consumer interest, etc.
Anyway, please debate xvsxp and such, not Apple's revenue. Sorry to bring it up.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/103u (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/100

[Mandrake]

I, personally, find you to be irritating. Your excessive use of emoticons is in violation of the forum rules, btw. Please refrain from the excessive use of emoticons and/or graphics in future posts.

Show me where this information comes from, give proof of your claims.

I don't think you can deny Google is a reputable source for information. It's not like taking web browser stats from this website, which are totally different from the rest of the web (For obvious reasons). Everyone, basically, visists Google, so the information is perfectly true.

Servers? Servers wouldn't visit Google, that's for sure. If there were servers in those results, the market share for UNIX/Linux related operating systems would be much higher than it is. It is well known that Linux has quit a large share of the server market.

Lastly, we can discuss the companies too. This is Mac vs PC thread, not limited to merely the operating systems.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; APC)

[ryaxnb]

I, personally, find you to be irritating. Your excessive use of emoticons is in violation of the forum rules, btw. Please refrain from the excessive use of emoticons and/or graphics in future posts.

Show me where this information comes from, give proof of your claims.

I don't think you can deny Google is a reputable source for information. It's not like taking web browser stats from this website, which are totally different from the rest of the web (For obvious reasons). Everyone, basically, visists Google, so the information is perfectly true.

Servers? Servers wouldn't visit Google, that's for sure. If there were servers in those results, the market share for UNIX/Linux related operating systems would be much higher than it is. It is well known that Linux has quit a large share of the server market.

Lastly, we can discuss the companies too. This is Mac vs PC thread, not limited to merely the operating systems.

Sorry about the emoticons, didn't know. *No frown emoticon used!*
Anyway, I got my info from source X. Apple's laptop share, at the least, has increased to 7%. But like I said, no market share discussion anymore, mkay?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/103u (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/100

[ryaxnb]

"I bought the iBook/466 just under two years ago for $999, new. I added 256 MB of RAM to it at a cost of about $45. I sold it for $799. This is another advantage of owning Macs. No Windows PC is in the same ballpark with a Mac when it comes to holding its value. A friend of mine bought a new Dell laptop for $2,200. Six months later, the same laptop was selling new for $1,199. So what would his notebook have brought on the used market? Around $900. That is a decrease in value of almost 60% in six months. I was able to get a new (for all practical purposes -- the refurb units carry the same warranty as new ones) iBook for a net cost of around $100, including the RAM upgrade, the PayPal and eBay fees, and tax. Try that with a PC."http://www.lowendmac.com/practical/03/0121.html
And i've been wondering about Google.
* Do they only count when people visit their homepage? Lots of Mac and PC users use the Google Toolbar, the Firebird Google search, the Mozilla Googlebar extension, the Safari Google search, ...
* Do they count the homepage and the Google Toolbar only? If so, the results are PC-biased, as the Google Toolbar is not available for Mac, and I'm guessing more users of the Mac use non-IE browsers that have Google searches built-in (Mozilla, Firebird, maybe Camino, OmniWeb, Safari, Netscape.)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/103u (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/100

[Mandrake]

If someone uses the Google Toolbar, when they search with it - that would be counted. In Firebird if I put a search in the search bar, I still end up at Google's site.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20031219

[ryaxnb]

If someone uses the Google Toolbar, when they search with it - that would be counted. In Firebird if I put a search in the search bar, I still end up at Google's site.

Yeah, but they might only count the home page, google.com.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/103u (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/100

[Antony]

A good example of Zero configuration. As mentioned in 26th Dec's entry of Mike Pinterton's blog.
Got a laser printer for xmas, it's a Brother HL-5070N with built-in Rendezvous support. On my tibook it really was zero configuration. ...

Zero configuration in Windows? not in another hundred years.

(Note: I give out the actual link to the blog entry, not just mentioning the name of the blog.)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.6

[Mandrake]

My grandmother got an HP printer for Christmas, I was at her house at the time, she asked me to set it up for her. All that was necessary was to plug it in to the computer, and to the power socket on the wall. Windows XP detected the printer and installed the drivers automatically, nothing more needed to be done.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030617