Apple's Steve Jobs comment on automotive design

Jobs compares Apple’s design process to other companies. “You know how you see a show car,” Jobs says, “and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.”

My comment: I always complain about this and haven't attended NAIAS in a few years now, as I don't see much point because of the truths stated above.

Full article about the article below:













The October 24th edition of Time magazine features a cover story on Apple and how the company is different from others when it comes to designing new products. While Apple CEO Steve Jobs is featured on the cover holding the new fifth-generation iPod, most of the article is devoted to analyzing the design process at Apple. The cover story contains some choice quotes from a number of Apple executives, including Jobs, Jonathan Ive and Tony Fadell. A paid subscription is required to read the full article.

Time’s Lev Grossman says that there are two things going on inside Apple—collaboration and control. When it comes to a new product, it’s a joint effort—the company does not pass a product down the line, from team to team. “There aren’t discrete, sequential development stages,” explains Grossman. “Instead, it’s simultaneous and organic. Products get worked on in parallel by all departments at once—design, hardware, software—in endless rounds of interdisciplinary design reviews.”

Jobs compares Apple’s design process to other companies. “You know how you see a show car,” Jobs says, “and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.”

Time’s Grossman describes the “control” of Jobs: “Sure, Jobs is perfectly pleasant to be around. And he pays attention to what you’re saying, but if he disagrees with it… he’ll come storming back and hammer at you until you change your mind or at least shut up… In other words, Jobs is into control. In itself, that is of no real importance, except that in a lot of ways, Apple is an expression of Jobs’ personal ethos.”

Finally, Jobs talks of the new iPod’s potential. “There is no market today for portable video,” he says. “We’re going to sell millions of these to people who want to play their music, and video is going to come along for the ride. Anyone who wants to put out video content will put it out for this. And we’ll find out what happens.”

This can only mean one thing... iCar in 2007. I'll be damned if it has that same easy to scratch white finish that's on my iPod and iBook though.

That's a really one sided and, for lack of a better word, un-educated comment..although I've come to expect no less from the 'black turtleneck sweater brigade.

One one hand I agree with him that it's frustrating to see a concept car watered down for production, but there are a whole slew for factors that has happened between show car and production. This isn't just cars, but industrial designers in general aren't very good at designing for production and then whining how engineers ruined everything (just for reference, I'm an industrial designer, I work around these issues all the time).

-From concept to production you have to take into production costs AND prodution capabilities or realities (in not uncommon for a designer to photo- realistically 'design' something and it's not close to being able to be produced). I have a design engineer friend who tells me this on a bi-weekly basis. The stories are not funny anymore.

-depending on the market you've got to decide how big a market you want to capture, thus you have to please more people and thus you get a little closer to vanilla.

-ergonomics (until the next beig step in human evolution, things can only be put in a certain place...and if you've seen the original iMac's mouse, Steve Jobs could use a lesson in ergonomics or at least give more than lip service to 'form follows function').

Cars and computers are completely different beasts. Nice to see Jobs hasn't lost his 'artist's ego'..... :rolleyes:

Whoa now. Steve makes computers, not cars. Take a poll of Mac users and PC users and see who makes better looking, better operating systems. Mac does what it does well.

He wasn't criticizing the car industry, just making a comparison to how they design and build things as a team working together, with all the different design and production concerns being evaluated as they go along as a team.

Truthfully, the auto industry could probably use some of this approach.

When I was a tech at a Chrysler dealer, I had a PT Cruiser convertible that had a melted down convertible top motor. This is when they first came out. I called Chrysler, since we didn't even have a manual and couldn't order parts yet. They sent 4 engineers to my dealership to inspect and test the car. I had guys that could point at a part and say, "I designed that". When I asked how you removed it, they didn't know. I asked, didn't you design it? They said, yes, but we don't know how it attaches. These guys were very smart, but as far as taking a car apart, no clue.

On a side note, that original imac mouse has helped two people I know get over carpal tunnel, by using it instead of a traditionally shaped mouse. I know you'll say, "How many did it cause carpal tunnel for?" I have no idea.

Whoa now. Steve makes computers, not cars. Take a poll of Mac users and PC users and see who makes better looking, better operating systems. Mac does what it does well.


Better looking? Mac.

Better operating? If speed is one of your criteria, PC's will crush any Mac in existence, particularly in the area of high-end graphics. Why? Games... games are the big technology pressure in home computing right now, and the PC's OWN the game market.

Games?

If I want to play games, I have a PS2. I was under the impression that the computer gaming was down, now that PS2 and XBox are so powerful and have online capability.

The dual processor G5's are pretty powerful.

"I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files. I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby."

My imac serves all my needs, looks great and has NEVER failed me in 4 years of use.

Better looking? Mac.

Better operating? If speed is one of your criteria, PC's will crush any Mac in existence, particularly in the area of high-end graphics. Why? Games... games are the big technology pressure in home computing right now, and the PC's OWN the game market.

Better operating also means reliability and interoperability. In both cases, the Mac takes the lead.

Mac's processors were really good at 3D graphics, such as OpenGL, for a loooong time. They were ahead of PCs by a couple of years always, until recently.

Of course, Mac will now be using Intel CPUs, and it will be interesting to see how different things will be.

I believe that now in 2005, the difference is really more about the operating system, than the hardware.

Macs operating system is AWESOME right out of the box. Windows can't touch it.

The way imovie, iphoto, idvd, itunes all work together is amazing. Plus, a Mac comes with everything loaded on it that most people will probably ever need. No other software to buy ever.

The Safari browser is great.

I love my Mac's and my ipods.

The current imacs are very capable, and look great. They have the whole computer and screen in an enclosure that is barely bigger than many monitors, that you then have to put some ugly tower somewhere for.

Looks count.

Sounded like critisism to me, or at least some self back patting at the expense of the auto industry. I'll get off my high horse.

Don't get me wrong, I do give Jobs tons of credit for turning Aplly around in the 90's with the iMac (which except for that stupid mouse which neither gave me nor cured me of carpel tunnel..and is the only mouse I've seen with a cover attachment), not only it's looks but it's '2 plugs and you're up and running' set up. And the new iMac is really cool, a graphic designer in the office has one. But I'll be a PC person until I can run Pro-E or Solidworks on one.

I agree 100% that design needs more power in the auto industry, and I think we've seen that take place in the last 6 years. Will it ever return to it's heyday of Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell? I doubt it, but hopefully it won't be put in the dark corner it was in the '70s and '80s.

lol like his company really has good designs. all he did was take a rectangle and put a smaller one and a circle inside it. (ipod) hasnt changed that since it came out, save for the shuffle where he simply took out the screen.

At least the auto industry can make products that work for longer than a year. im on my 3rd ipod mini since i got it in june 04. luckily i got a 3 yr warranty.

Games?

If I want to play games, I have a PS2. I was under the impression that the computer gaming was down, now that PS2 and XBox are so powerful and have online capability.

The dual processor G5's are pretty powerful.


Well....your impression was wrong. PS2 and the XBOX dont have anything on PCs as far as gaming.

I dont like how concepts get watered down either.

Better operating also means reliability and interoperability. In both cases, the Mac takes the lead.

Mac's processors were really good at 3D graphics, such as OpenGL, for a loooong time. They were ahead of PCs by a couple of years always, until recently.

Of course, Mac will now be using Intel CPUs, and it will be interesting to see how different things will be.

It's a hard fact, but in games Macs get crushed. PC's are faster, period.

ID basically has to have it's arm twisted to port games to Macs for a reason.

I see Job's Mac and raise him two PCI-X Nvidia 7800's running in SLI.

It's a hard fact, but in games Macs get crushed. PC's are faster, period.

ID basically has to have it's arm twisted to port games to Macs for a reason.

I see Job's Mac and raise him two PCI-X Nvidia 7800's running in SLI.


You just repeated what you said already, i simply added another component to the discussion. Games are not a [significant] factor when purchasing a Mac.

I am and always have been a PC user. My immediate plans do not include a Mac. But I do give credit where it's due.

Well....your impression was wrong. PS2 and the XBOX dont have anything on PCs as far as gaming.

I dont like how concepts get watered down either.


The xbox did have a more advanced GPU then current gen PC's when it was released. Its technologically obsolete now, the same as if you bought a high end gaming PC at the same time XBOX debuted. Xbox 360 will again put it beyond current gen PC's.

No doubt, I'll admit that Mac has nothing for games.

It might be a chicken and egg thing too. There are very few games for a Mac, so maybe there is not much pressure at Apple for them to play well.

In my office, I have a imac on one desk and directly across the room, I have a new HP. I feel like Batman's 2 face villan having to turn my chair around to use the "other" one.

I didn't buy either computer for gaming. So, I can't speak on PC gaming. Heck, the last computer game I played was Starcraft and it worked great on my imac.

I work on computers all day long. When I want to play a game, I want to lay on the couch and play PS2.

Better looking? Mac.

Better operating? If speed is one of your criteria, PC's will crush any Mac in existence, particularly in the area of high-end graphics. Why? Games... games are the big technology pressure in home computing right now, and the PC's OWN the game market.
Speed is relative. Just as in the car world, there's the speed you read about in magazines and then there's the real world. If you're referring to the benchmarks in all the pc mags, then you are correct, PC's generally win out against the comparable Mac.

In the real world, or at least in my experience, it takes longer to do just about anything on our PC's compared to our Mac's.

That's a really one sided and, for lack of a better word, un-educated comment..although I've come to expect no less from the 'black turtleneck sweater brigade.

One one hand I agree with him that it's frustrating to see a concept car watered down for production, but there are a whole slew for factors that has happened between show car and production. This isn't just cars, but industrial designers in general aren't very good at designing for production and then whining how engineers ruined everything (just for reference, I'm an industrial designer, I work around these issues all the time).

-From concept to production you have to take into production costs AND prodution capabilities or realities (in not uncommon for a designer to photo- realistically 'design' something and it's not close to being able to be produced). I have a design engineer friend who tells me this on a bi-weekly basis. The stories are not funny anymore.

-depending on the market you've got to decide how big a market you want to capture, thus you have to please more people and thus you get a little closer to vanilla.

-ergonomics (until the next beig step in human evolution, things can only be put in a certain place...and if you've seen the original iMac's mouse, Steve Jobs could use a lesson in ergonomics or at least give more than lip service to 'form follows function').

Cars and computers are completely different beasts. Nice to see Jobs hasn't lost his 'artist's ego'..... :rolleyes:

All of your points are exactly Jobs' point. If cars were designed in a manner similar to the way Apple designs computers, iPods, etc., then there would be experts in all relevant fields working together with the designer. That way, the designer can come up with an attractive concept that was still workable as a production car (or computer).

Yes, the industries are extremely different, but the philosophy used at Apple can be applied to any industry.

All of your points are exactly Jobs' point. If cars were designed in a manner similar to the way Apple designs computers, iPods, etc., then there would be experts in all relevant fields working together with the designer. That way, the designer can come up with an attractive concept that was still workable as a production car (or computer).

Yes, the industries are extremely different, but the philosophy used at Apple can be applied to any industry.

I think you mis-interpretted my rant. My issue was Job's crack that auto companies don't seem to be able to take concepts right to production as is when there's a ton more give and take than there is in any iPod or Mac.

[QUOTE=
Yes, the industries are extremely different, but the philosophy used at Apple can be applied to any industry.[/QUOTE]

It cracks me up that people now see Apple as a success.

It cracks me up that people now see Apple as a success.
It is pretty ironic, but when you think about it, they are a big success.

They diserve some credit for even being here. They should have become a footnote in the history of personal computers by going out of business in the mid-ninetees. Instead they held on, and found a new source of profit. In the process, they've had to learn to coexist with Microsoft - which doesn't like coexisting with anybody - and had to consistantly out market and out innovate Sony.

It cracks me up that people now see Apple as a success.
I have seen Apple as a success for a very long time. They were mismanaged for a few years in the mid 90's, but things have been going very well for almost ten years now. They were great in the 80's, too.

Please, tell me why I shouldn't see them as a success. I'm so curious...

Making a computer design, isn't veryhard. They have a bunch of stuff, put it in a box, then make the box colorful, maybe have curved edges, maybe have a special blue light on it. For cars, you can just throw a ram-air styled hood on any car. It has to be designed a certain way. I do understand his point though, about different departments not really working in synch with eachother. That problem has been address by GM though, and should become increasingly apparent.

It is pretty ironic, but when you think about it, they are a big success.

They diserve some credit for even being here. They should have become a footnote in the history of personal computers by going out of business in the mid-ninetees. Instead they held on, and found a new source of profit. In the process, they've had to learn to coexist with Microsoft - which doesn't like coexisting with anybody - and had to consistantly out market and out innovate Sony.

The ipod success was the result of marketing and copying the best features from other products. There were equally good players with equally good interfaces available from other MFG's. They just did not have the name recognition that Ipod got from their advertising blitz. Apple does not even make much on the hardware itself and the artist unions are now wanting a bigger slice of the payday from the ipod store. That means that they will be making less and less from that revenue stream.

Wasn't the original Viper developed using the team approach?

p.s. Mac guy here. Our office is almost all G5 iMacs. I love it when visitors crawl all around the desks looking for the CPU's. :D

Would this be a good time to bring up that conversation between Bill Gates and a GM exec (Roger Smith) about cars running on Windows OS?

Or would that be in-appropriate here? :p

The ipod success was the result of marketing and copying the best features from other products. There were equally good players with equally good interfaces available from other MFG's. They just did not have the name recognition that Ipod got from their advertising blitz. Apple does not even make much on the hardware itself and the artist unions are now wanting a bigger slice of the payday from the ipod store. That means that they will be making less and less from that revenue stream.
You've got it backwards. Apple LOSES money selling music on the iTunes Music Store. It's a loss leader to help them sell iPods, from which they take a big fat profit margin.

Equally good interfaces? I haven't seen an interface yet that comes close to the iPod. Which one(s) are you referring to?

There was a real conversation?

I have read the jokes before about if cars were like PC's. stopping on the highway and such. having to reboot. Lots of jokes like that.

There was really a conversation like this?

Yeah I'm pretty sure Gates really said that stuff. It was years ago.

Equally good interfaces? I haven't seen an interface yet that comes close to the iPod. Which one(s) are you referring to?

On the software side, itunes makes a complete mockery of the competitors. I had some free sony store songs. What a pain. Rhapsody isn't all that bad, but its no itunes.

You've got it backwards. Apple LOSES money selling music on the iTunes Music Store. It's a loss leader to help them sell iPods, from which they take a big fat profit margin.

Equally good interfaces? I haven't seen an interface yet that comes close to the iPod. Which one(s) are you referring to?

What are you talking about??? Show me where they are losing money on itunes. That would be huge news to me. Regardless, the artists (both TV/movie and song) want a higher royalty now. Apple is currently dealing with this problem. They will either have to raise prices or take money out of the ipod profit (if they are rolling in it as you say) to subsidize.

Creatives players (which are also rebadged as Dell's and other) were just as good and pioneered some of the ipods most beloved features.

Winamp is okay as far as software interface for a PC music player. I happen to like iTunes better, but that's arguable, especially if you like to skin your player. In terms of music stores, iTunes is pretty untouchable for ease of use. People who prefer the subscription model need to look elsewhere, but I think that the subscription model is pretty impractical in the long term.

But I was asking about the iPod itself. The combined hardware/software interface (i.e. the click wheel AND the onscreen display) is far superior to anything offered by any other manufacturer. Dell's player would be okay if it didn't have that silly thumb wheel for scrolling...

What are you talking about??? Show me where they are losing money on itunes. That would be huge news to me.

Quote: "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/your_99c_belong/)

Quote: "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/your_99c_belong/)

If they sell many more songs then ipods and are losing money on the songs, it would seem like a problem to me. Especially when factoring in R&D.

The date on that article is 2003.

But, I too have heard that they don't make barely anything on the songs. Probably at least breaking even now. 2003 was a LONG time ago in the world of computing.

What are you talking about??? Show me where they are losing money on itunes. That would be huge news to me. Regardless, the artists (both TV/movie and song) want a higher royalty now. Apple is currently dealing with this problem. They will either have to raise prices or take money out of the ipod profit (if they are rolling in it as you say) to subsidize.

Creatives players (which are also rebadged as Dell's and other) were just as good and pioneered some of the ipods most beloved features.

As a matter of fact, many features incorporated by Creative players were in imitation of iPod, and not the other way around. Everybody usually builds on previous innovation, but apple managed to bring powerful features with an industry first hard drive MP3 player with an incredibly easy interface. Others followed shortly, but could not gain the success of Apple.

And as for caching on the name? Apple was just known to be a niche computer company. Yet their iPod managed to lure many PC users over, and it was their product that established their name so well afterwards.

There was a real conversation?

I have read the jokes before about if cars were like PC's. stopping on the highway and such. having to reboot. Lots of jokes like that.

There was really a conversation like this?

I think it was a real conversation (not directly bewteen the two) that ended up a joke.

<<<<prefers dell jukebox over ipod

It cracks me up that people now see Apple as a success.

Apple stock price in Oct. 2002 - Around $8
Apple stock price in Oct. 2005 - Around $54

Hmm...

You think that's something?

The stock was over 80 and then did a split a few months back. So, it was back down around 37 after the split. Now its back up that high again?

Mild success. LOL.

If speed is one of your criteria, PC's will crush any Mac in existence, particularly in the area of high-end graphics.

Really? Interesting, then, that Mac is the industry standard in every major digital graphic arts profession including publishing, illustration, audio and video editing, and of course, CGI effects. Mac has little game software support because that's how it's market has evolved, unfortunately. I'll take a G5 over any PC for serious graphics applications.

The ipod success was the result of marketing and copying the best features from other products.

Kind of like how Microsoft ripped off Apple for their Windows operating system, right? ;)

I'll give PC one thing- they're cheap, which is why we bought a Dell for home use. And relating to the thread topic, I bet if they could develop concept cars to production with no design changes, they would cost a whole lot more too. My .2c

You think that's something?

The stock was over 80 and then did a split a few months back. So, it was back down around 37 after the split. Now its back up that high again?

Mild success. LOL.

Mild success? I sure hope you don't trade stock...or at least have a broker who knows what he's doing. A stock having a gain of 500% (From Oct '02 to now) is not mild in any brokers books.

Yes I know it spilt, I own the stock. Perhaps you dont understand how a stock splits affects the price/# of shares a stock holder has. Anyhow having bought the stock in the late 1990's when it was around $8-10, I'm pretty happy with $54.

If in the NEXT 3 years GM stock performs as well as Apple has in the LAST 3 years (as in going up 500%) GM stock holders will be spontaneously orgasming.

Mild success? I sure hope you don't trade stock...or at least have a broker who knows what he's doing. A stock having a gain of 500% (From Oct '02 to now) is not mild in any brokers books.

Yes I know it spilt, I own the stock. Perhaps you dont understand how a stock splits affects the price/# of shares a stock holder has. Anyhow having bought the stock in the late 1990's when it was around $8-10, I'm pretty happy with $54.

If in the NEXT 3 years GM stock performs as well as Apple has in the LAST 3 years (as in going up 500%) GM stock holders will be spontaneously orgasming.



I was being sarcastic.

I was being sarcastic.

Hah. Alright then...

Apple stock price in Oct. 2002 - Around $8
Apple stock price in Oct. 2005 - Around $54

Hmm...
You think that's something?

The stock was over 80 and then did a split a few months back. So, it was back down around 37 after the split. Now its back up that high again?

Mild success. LOL.
Mild success? I sure hope you don't trade stock...or at least have a broker who knows what he's doing. A stock having a gain of 500% (From Oct '02 to now) is not mild in any brokers books.

Yes I know it spilt, I own the stock. Perhaps you dont understand how a stock splits affects the price/# of shares a stock holder has. Anyhow having bought the stock in the late 1990's when it was around $8-10, I'm pretty happy with $54.

If in the NEXT 3 years GM stock performs as well as Apple has in the LAST 3 years (as in going up 500%) GM stock holders will be spontaneously orgasming.
I was being sarcastic.

LOL...likely excuse Z.

Good point about the GM stock...hell if it even goes up 200% in the next few years that would be great.

Also it is true that Apple makes little to no money on the iTunes store. All the profit is coming from the iPod sales. That very topic was just on CNBC the other day.

On the software side, itunes makes a complete mockery of the competitors. I had some free sony store songs. What a pain. Rhapsody isn't all that bad, but its no itunes.
iTunes is a horrid bloated POS of a pig. I can't stand that thing and can't see how anyone else can. it carries on a theme present in all Apple products, "my way or no way at all." Even Microsoft with all its big brother intentions gives you 50 ways to do the same thing. Good softwere is about letting the USER chose how they want things.

Macs - for people who haven't a clue.
PCs - for people who know what they're doing.

until OS X, there was absolutely nothing redeemable about any modern Mac. All show and no go as they say. In other words rice. With OS X, at least there's a powerful unix kernel hidden beneith all the bubblegum eyecandy to warrent a Mac running it some due recognition. Then again, you have to be running a computer 10x more powerful than they use at mission control in Houston just so that it has the appearance of any speed whatsoever.

Plus if you're talking about running any serious business applications (business not art; you know things that actually make you money) you can drag your iMac into iTrashbin and save yourself the cost, trouble, headache and overhead.

Besides, WTF does Jobs know about design anyway? Didn't anyone watch Pirates of Silicon Valley? He's nothing but a hippie turn businessman. He knows much less of design than he carries on or others give him credit for. Given that, his words on the auto industry in any area carry 0 weight.

In any case, I'm this-close to getting my Computer Science degree if you can't tell.

In any case, I'm this-close to getting my Computer Science degree if you can't tell.

How close are you to getting your a$$hole degree?

LOL.

How close are you to getting your a$$hole degree?

LOL.
why? did the truth sting a little more than you anticipated?? :P

I'm hurting pretty badly right now.

Oh that's right, I've been working since 4 AM(20 hours ago), using the HP. I only had to restart once to be able to print, because the screensaver had kicked in at some point. You can forget about printing without restarting if the "DAMN BUILT IN FROM MICROSOFT" screensaver ever turns on.

Of course, I did take a break earlier to turn my chair to my imac and buy some new songs on itunes. (When WAS the last time I had to do maintenance on or restart my imac?)

I even made a new playlist on my ipod.

It was pure bliss.

I'm hurting pretty badly right now.

Oh that's right, I've been working since 4 AM(20 hours ago), using the HP. I only had to restart once to be able to print, because the screensaver had kicked in at some point. You can forget about printing without restarting if the "DAMN BUILT IN FROM MICROSOFT" screensaver ever turns on.

Of course, I did take a break earlier to turn my chair to my imac and buy some new songs on itunes. (When WAS the last time I had to do maintenance on or restart my imac?)

I even made a new playlist on my ipod.

It was pure bliss.
which brings me back to this:


Macs - for people who haven't a clue.
PCs - for people who know what they're doing.



BTW, nowhere in that did I mention microsoft...

In any case, I'm this-close to getting my Computer Science degree if you can't tell.
I have my computer science degree, and I'm here to tell you that, well, you're an opinionated ass.

I have a Mac at home. It's old -- 450MHz G4. I'm using it right now. I challenge you to set up a 450MHz Pentium III machine running the latest operating system, with all of the bells and whistles enabled, and it only reveals its age when you're doing CPU-intensive things like ripping MP3s. I restart it only when a software update requires me to do so, which is maybe once every couple months. It always works, and it never gets in my way. I'm using it to develop a PHP website in my spare time, and it doubles as a test server. This very computer was once the primary development machine for Mock Draft Central.com (http://www.mockdraftcentral.com), but they couldn't afford me anymore.

I have a PC where I work now. Dual 19" LCDs, 2GB of RAM, hyperthreaded 3.4GHz P4, the works. XP Pro. From a hardware standpoint, it is lightyears ahead of my Mac. I use it to develop Java applications, and it also doubles as a test server running BEA Weblogic. It gets cranky if I don't restart it every day.

Macs - for people who haven't a clue.
PCs - for people who know what they're doing.

It seems to me like you've not spent very much time using a Mac -- maybe a couple hours. And when you did, you didn't have an open mind. It wasn't a PC, so you automatically hated it. If you spent a week being open minded (I'm sure that would be really hard for you), you would find out the truth:

Macs - for people that want a computer.
PCs - for people that want a hobby.

I don't have to "take care" of my Mac. It's always here, always ready. It always does what I tell it to do. It's a computer, and only a computer. A PC is a computer too, but its primary role in my life is as something which I need to take care of. It's like a dog that freaks out because it hasn't been let outside to pee in a while. As long as you remember to restart once a day, you'll be fine.

You said that PCs are for people that know what they're doing. True, because if you don't, you stand no chance of operating it successfully for any extended period of time. Likewise, you said that Macs are for people who haven't a clue. I'd argue that Macs are for people who want the computer to get out of the way so that they can get the job done.

It's more than just the restarting, too. There are so many little nitpicky things that it's not even worth getting into.

Pirates of Silicon Valley? Are you serious? You're using that as your reference? Why don't you try reading one of the many biographies written about him, or maybe a book on the history of Apple. Then, just maybe, you might find some respect for Steve Jobs' genius. He's a little kooky, and maybe a little hard to work for, but the man is a genius.

BTW, nowhere in that did I mention microsoft...
Oh, you're just tossing that in at the end? What are you using, Ubuntu? Red Hat? That just makes my point stronger. Sit your grandmother down at that machine and see if she can check her email. Mine can on my Mac, and then I can sit down afterwards and work on the PHP site.

Nice post.

He has probably never used any version of OSX. He is probably coming from very limited experience from version 8 or 9.(both still better than ANY version of wnodows)

No PC running any kind of software that I have ever seen comes anywhere near the usability of a Mac.

The way all of the Mac software titles work flawlessly together is incredible. A pure amateur can sit down and in a few hours, he can create a decent looking movie and burn it to a dvd that will play in any dvd player.

And, it didn't cost hime 1 cent more than the cost of the computer to do it, since the Mac comes loaded with software.

Mybe some day Windows will steal some of the Mac ideas, like expose. But, perhaps not, as that would change what they are all about.........Being difficult to work with.

It's pretty funny that every new version of windows gets closer and closer to an older version of the Mac operating system. Yet, it still never works anywhere near as well.

I'm not sure Mac OS 8 or 9 were better than Windows 2003 Server, Enterprise Edition. I had an opportunity to work with that for a few months earlier this year. That was nice. Too bad it's $4,000 for a 25-client version, plus $40-50 per user above 25. :lol:

Mac OS X Server is $499 for a 10-client version, and $999 for an unlimited client version. They don't overcomplicate it by making you pick between user licenses and device licenses. They don't give you a million different confusing options.

Okay, yes, most variations of Linux are free, but let me know how you're doing once you've put a price on the time it took you to download it, install it, configure it, and set up a secure three-node server cluster. You do value your own time, don't you?

I do. That's why I use a Mac.

4+ pages devoted to everything BUT cars....

..no one can say you guys don't have a life. :D

In my defense, I started the thread in relation to cars.

Long live the icar in 2008.

It all goes back to arguing Steve Jobs' credibility so that we can then discuss the applicability of his comment on automotive design. We're still on topic, I swear! :D

Jobs compares Apple’s design process to other companies. “You know how you see a show car,” Jobs says, “and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.”

My comment: I always complain about this and haven't attended NAIAS in a few years now, as I don't see much point because of the truths stated above.

Full article about the article below:













The October 24th edition of Time magazine features a cover story on Apple and how the company is different from others when it comes to designing new products. While Apple CEO Steve Jobs is featured on the cover holding the new fifth-generation iPod, most of the article is devoted to analyzing the design process at Apple. The cover story contains some choice quotes from a number of Apple executives, including Jobs, Jonathan Ive and Tony Fadell. A paid subscription is required to read the full article.

Time’s Lev Grossman says that there are two things going on inside Apple—collaboration and control. When it comes to a new product, it’s a joint effort—the company does not pass a product down the line, from team to team. “There aren’t discrete, sequential development stages,” explains Grossman. “Instead, it’s simultaneous and organic. Products get worked on in parallel by all departments at once—design, hardware, software—in endless rounds of interdisciplinary design reviews.”

Jobs compares Apple’s design process to other companies. “You know how you see a show car,” Jobs says, “and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.”

Time’s Grossman describes the “control” of Jobs: “Sure, Jobs is perfectly pleasant to be around. And he pays attention to what you’re saying, but if he disagrees with it… he’ll come storming back and hammer at you until you change your mind or at least shut up… In other words, Jobs is into control. In itself, that is of no real importance, except that in a lot of ways, Apple is an expression of Jobs’ personal ethos.”

Finally, Jobs talks of the new iPod’s potential. “There is no market today for portable video,” he says. “We’re going to sell millions of these to people who want to play their music, and video is going to come along for the ride. Anyone who wants to put out video content will put it out for this. And we’ll find out what happens.”


Im not a cook, so i dont go around preaching how one should cook a peice of prime rib, he should do the same.

Im not a cook, so i dont go around preaching how one should cook a peice of prime rib, he should do the same.
Imagine this:

You're at a nice restaurant. You order a prime rib, cooked medium rare. The picture and/or description on the menu showed a VERY nice looking piece of meat.

You are served a tough, well-done, undersized cut of meat. It's not even prime rib, it's rump roast.

Do you complain?

Imagine this:

You're at a nice restaurant. You order a prime rib, cooked medium rare. The picture and/or description on the menu showed a VERY nice looking piece of meat.

You are served a tough, well-done, undersized cut of meat. It's not even prime rib, it's rump roast.

Do you complain?


You deal with exactly that everytime you order fast-food or prepared food.

Hell you think the Big mac looks anything like that gorgous burger on the menu? no..

I love going to steak house's and seeing this 1 in a million slice of beef on the page, and receiving some hacked to hell disfunctional slab.. (although the same relative size).

Its no different in the world of concepts, they show us unrealistic masterpeices to wet our whistle, when its time to order it never comes to the table the same way it looked on the page.

You deal with exactly that everytime you order fast-food or prepared food.

Hell you think the Big mac looks anything like that gorgous burger on the menu? no..

I love going to steak house's and seeing this 1 in a million slice of beef on the page, and receiving some hacked to hell disfunctional slab.. (although the same relative size).

Its no different in the world of concepts, they show us unrealistic masterpeices to wet our whistle, when its time to order it never comes to the table the same way it looked on the page.
I eat at restaurants that actually deliver on their promises. The ones that don't aren't really worth the money. When I do actually eat at McDonalds, I'll order Chicken Selects or something like that. Not those nasty-ass burgers. Incidentally, the items I order happen to be things that look the same as the picture on the menu.

I didn't mean to turn this into a debate about whether we should eat at crappy restaurants, though. I just meant to point out the flaw in your logic.

At a restaurant, the understanding is that the thing in the picture is what you're ordering, and it's really going to be that. I don't eat at restaurants that don't deliver on that promise.

With car companies, it's generally understood that the concept cars are just concepts, and that they may or may not make it into production as-is. Ford has been doing a good job lately of getting concepts through to production with minimal changes. Now they just need to build a car I might actually buy. :D

GM has a history of making neat concepts that are completely impractical as real production cars. The whole point Steve Jobs was making is that the concept guys should work with the rest of the development team more in order to make more realistic concepts.

If the chef tells the menu designer that he can't cook a good prime rib to save his life, maybe the menu designer wouldn't put it on the menu.

This is going to be a horrible pun, but...

...I think what we're saying is it's pretty arrogant for someone to compare his 'apple' business to another's 'orange' business.

For instance...I don't recall computers having to meet 5 mph crash standards (oh boy, they keep coming) or the speed of companies computers meeting an industry average standard (like fuel economy).

And let's turn this around. For years we've seen concepts of flexible screens and paper thin monitors. How come my computer screen is still think and rigid? One could argue Mr. Jobs's has wrestled design from the jaws of victory. :think:

I don't recall computers having to meet 5 mph crash standards
That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. I don't recall cars undergoing the ongoing scrutiny of every information security expert in the world, either. So what?
And let's turn this around. For years we've seen concepts of flexible screens and paper thin monitors. How come my computer screen is still think and rigid? One could argue Mr. Jobs's has wrestled design from the jaws of victory. :think:
You think that Steve Jobs is the reason computers don't have flexible monitors? What gives you that idea? That sort of technology is only within reach of bleeding-edge researchers with big budgets right now. When/if it becomes both viable and affordable, you'll see it on computers. There's a good chance that the first place you see it is on an Apple product, too.

You think that Steve Jobs is the reason computers don't have flexible monitors? What gives you that idea? That sort of technology is only within reach of bleeding-edge researchers with big budgets right now. When/if it becomes both viable and affordable, you'll see it on computers. There's a good chance that the first place you see it is on an Apple product, too.


I highly doubt we will ever see any monitor technology exclusive on any apple workstation, thats just off to even assume.

Not trying to spark anymore debates with you, but come on :p

As long as it supports DVI | VGA cable and so on, it will be mass marketed. With that being said, the industry leader would probally be the first to offer it, and sorry to say thats not apple.

Maybe a dell ;)

You think that Steve Jobs is the reason computers don't have flexible monitors? What gives you that idea? That sort of technology is only within reach of bleeding-edge researchers with big budgets right now. When/if it becomes both viable and affordable, you'll see it on computers. There's a good chance that the first place you see it is on an Apple product, too.

And thus, my personal/profesional issue with Steve Job's statement.

The exact same thing applies to concept and production cars.

I highly doubt we will ever see any monitor technology exclusive on any apple workstation, thats just off to even assume.

Not trying to spark anymore debates with you, but come on :p

As long as it supports DVI | VGA cable and so on, it will be mass marketed. With that being said, the industry leader would probally be the first to offer it, and sorry to say thats not apple.

Maybe a dell ;)
Okay, so the fact that the first (and currently only) Dual-link DVI monitor on the market is an Apple monitor doesn't count?

Dell? Everything Dell has ever sold is somebody else's product, rebranded and repackaged. Dell has never been the first do do anything, technology-wise. Literally.

And thus, my personal/profesional issue with Steve Job's statement.

The exact same thing applies to concept and production cars.
Fair enough. At least when Steve shows us something new and cool, though, he delivers on it.

Okay, so the fact that the first (and currently only) Dual-link DVI monitor on the market is an Apple monitor doesn't count?

Dell? Everything Dell has ever sold is somebody else's product, rebranded and repackaged. Dell has never been the first do do anything, technology-wise. Literally.


I can see your a mac guy, and from my experiance im not gonna waste my time even arguing market shares and so on.

Very true about dell, but stock price and market share says a ****-load in a capitalist economy.

Apple is more of a "Gotta be different" company, the same as some of the automotive makers out there. They dream wild, and deliver wild yet still control the lesser end of the market (Digital imaging, Presentations and so-on aside) yet PC is the more widely accepted.

I can see your a mac guy, and from my experiance im not gonna waste my time even arguing market shares and so on..
Arguing market share is pointless in a "which is better" discussion. I hate it when people use market share to explain how one product is superior to another. Ferarri has a tiny market share, and huge prices, but nobody ever says their cars aren't any good (well, except maybe the guys at Lamborghini, but that's not the point).

Very true about dell, but stock price and market share says a ****-load in a capitalist economy.
Stock price and market share have nothing to do with product quality. Stock price has to do with business viability. Are investors willing to bet that this company is going to continue to make money? Market share has to do with marketing and cost effectiveness. Do people know about the product? Can they afford it? Do they feel like it's worth the money? Market share is not directly affected by whether a product actually is worth the money -- only by whether people feel like its worth the money.

Apple is more of a "Gotta be different" company, the same as some of the automotive makers out there. They dream wild, and deliver wild yet still control the lesser end of the market (Digital imaging, Presentations and so-on aside) yet PC is the more widely accepted.
I think you need to spend some time reading about today's Apple Computer. Your opinions and information make it evident that the last time you really knew anything current about Apple was in the 1990's. For your own sake, go do some research. Today's Apple Computer is not about being different. They're about being powerful, elegant, and stylish, while still being easy to use. Making money is relatively low on the priority list when you compare Apple to Microsoft, Dell, etc. Their first priority is to deliver a product worth owning, using, keeping, and enjoying. They have to make money doing it, but they never disappoint with respect to those other ideals.

I have my computer science degree, and I'm here to tell you that, well, you're an opinionated ass.
that doesn't make you right and me wrong.


I have a Mac at home. It's old -- 450MHz G4. I'm using it right now. I challenge you to set up a 450MHz Pentium III machine running the latest operating system, with all of the bells and whistles enabled, and it only reveals its age when you're doing CPU-intensive things like ripping MP3s.

First, I'm mostly an AMD guy. But unfortunately for you you're stuck with whatever Apple decides is best for you. And unless you haven't heard, Apple decided you're going to use Intel's procs now. Hmm.... Second, it might be a challange for you but I've been running either 2K or XP on one machine or another since '99... right around those P3/Celeron A haydays.. Still have a Pentium II 266 that's ticking with the latest build (at the time of install) of XP (with all the service packs, hotfixes, patches, security plugs, whathaveyou) installed with all the gunk and gliz that's useless taken out. Just a lean, mean, functional slipstream of XP. So, yeah. There goes your challange I guess..

I restart it only when a software update requires me to do so, which is maybe once every couple months. It always works, and it never gets in my way. I'm using it to develop a PHP website in my spare time, and it doubles as a test server. This very computer was once the primary development machine for Mock Draft Central.com (http://www.mockdraftcentral.com), but they couldn't afford me anymore.
I honestly can't remember the last time I had to restart my P2 266 mentioned about (its a file server tucked away in a closet)... At one point around '97-'99 I had a 486 running an ancient version of slackware for like over a year straight. In fact I was really bad and completely neglected it. It served as a NAT before the time when you could goto BestBuy and pick one up for $50. so what's your point?


I have a PC where I work now. Dual 19" LCDs, 2GB of RAM, hyperthreaded 3.4GHz P4, the works. XP Pro. From a hardware standpoint, it is light years ahead of my Mac. I use it to develop Java applications, and it also doubles as a test server running BEA Weblogic. It gets cranky if I don't restart it every day.

maybe it somehow knows your a mac user? i dunno...


It seems to me like you've not spent very much time using a Mac -- maybe a couple hours. And when you did, you didn't have an open mind. It wasn't a PC, so you automatically hated it. If you spent a week being open minded (I'm sure that would be really hard for you), you would find out the truth:

Macs - for people that want a computer.
PCs - for people that want a hobby.

back in '92 when I was a kid, a friend of mine had one of those old macs with the color monitor built in... the one that would spit out the floppy if you dragged it to the trash bin. I thought it was really neat. I played around with it for the better part of a year. At my high school I basically acted as an IT guy for our library/career center macs. In 2000, I had a full time job that required me to do software testing on a mac for at least 2-3 hours out of the day. But by that time you're right, I didn't want to deal with it. In fact I dreaded it. Because if the '92 Mac seemed like an open sea of possibilities, the 2000 Mac was a container you had to contort yourself to get into. The industry had moved on you see, but the Mac hasn't.


I don't have to "take care" of my Mac. It's always here, always ready. It always does what I tell it to do. It's a computer, and only a computer. A PC is a computer too, but its primary role in my life is as something which I need to take care of. It's like a dog that freaks out because it hasn't been let outside to pee in a while. As long as you remember to restart once a day, you'll be fine.

if you're going to accuse me of bias, at least have enough balls to admit your own...


You said that PCs are for people that know what they're doing. True, because if you don't, you stand no chance of operating it successfully for any extended period of time. Likewise, you said that Macs are for people who haven't a clue. I'd argue that Macs are for people who want the computer to get out of the way so that they can get the job done.

sure, if you like getting the job done with an eye closed and one arm tied behind your back while high on elicit chemicals.


Pirates of Silicon Valley? Are you serious? You're using that as your reference? Why don't you try reading one of the many biographies written about him, or maybe a book on the history of Apple. Then, just maybe, you might find some respect for Steve Jobs' genius. He's a little kooky, and maybe a little hard to work for, but the man is a genius.

That movie is a much more common point of reference than any article on Jobs (except the one mention in the original post to all of us here). Speaking of which, Steve Jobs must be a genius in his own mind if he doesn't realize before speaking, how many people in the auto industry (some of whom may be his "fans") he put in the sh1tter by making those few blunt comments. If he was a designer working for Italdesign, I'd probably say "he has a point." But he "designs" plastic enclosures for a collection of parts one in the industry can get with rediculouse ease. You're kidding yourself if you think Apple designs a single stick of functional hardware they use in their machines or ipod or whatever else. He has no base to stand on. So forgive me if I don't take his word for it. And forgive me if I consider his comments asinine.


Oh, you're just tossing that in at the end? What are you using, Ubuntu? Red Hat? That just makes my point stronger. Sit your grandmother down at that machine and see if she can check her email. Mine can on my Mac, and then I can sit down afterwards and work on the PHP site.
for all intents and purposes you can consider your OS X as RedHat (since you pointed it out) with a MacOS emulator and a Mac "skin". So how does that make your point stronger? You're running UNIX didn't you know??

hahaha!! I see your grandmother's email and raise you my grandmother's chat addiction... she doesn't even speak English... she had to paste Russian letters on the keyboard keys to have it make sense to her.

And besides, what's your point? Any browser looks similar enough running on any os. I wouldn't dream of making my grandmother setup ANY os. But she can program each of her 3 VCRs to record the shows she likes. Did you make yours setup a MacOS before she could check her email? I don't think so. I bet if I setup BeOS for her (assuming it was still just obscure instead of completely lost in oblivion) she'd feel right at home pulling open a web browser and downloading her daily puzzle game.

that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
You're right, my degree doesn't make me right. I just wanted to establish a basis of credibility, the same as you did. And I still think you're an ass. You keep saying these asinine things like "didn't you know?" and "if you haven't heard," in a manner which is obviously intended to make me feel stupid. Guess what! I'm not stupid, I don't feel stupid, and you can quit doing that **** whenever you're ready to have a real, adult conversation about the merits of two modern operating systems. Read on.

First, I'm mostly an AMD guy. But unfortunately for you you're stuck with whatever Apple decides is best for you. And unless you haven't heard, Apple decided you're going to use Intel's procs now. Hmm.... Second, it might be a challange for you but I've been running either 2K or XP on one machine or another since '99... right around those P3/Celeron A haydays.. Still have a Pentium II 266 that's ticking with the latest build (at the time of install) of XP (with all the service packs, hotfixes, patches, security plugs, whathaveyou) installed with all the gunk and gliz that's useless taken out. Just a lean, mean, functional slipstream of XP. So, yeah. There goes your challange I guess..
Intel, AMD, whatever. I kind of wish Apple was switching to AMD rather than Intel, but Intel's mobile processors are a lot better these days and I think that's a major deciding point for Apple to made that choice.

Windows 2000 was released on February 17, 2000. I suppose you're one of those uber-nerds that uses pre-release versions whenever you can get them. Whatever.

You said "with all the gunk and gliz that's useless taken out." I said "with all the bells and whistles enabled." And I mean everything. True color, high monitor resolution (1600x1200), full text antialiasing enabled. All of it. Then you said you only use it as a NAT/file server. I'm talking about day-to-day use typical of a power user, including web browsing with tons of browser windows/tabs open, email, software development, chat, editing graphics, etc. My 450MHz machine handles all of that beautifully. There goes my challenge, indeed.

I honestly can't remember the last time I had to restart my P2 266 mentioned about (its a file server tucked away in a closet)... At one point around '97-'99 I had a 486 running an ancient version of slackware for like over a year straight. In fact I was really bad and completely neglected it. It served as a NAT before the time when you could goto BestBuy and pick one up for $50. so what's your point?
I don't know how you got this idea that I was talking about simple server machines. When's the last time you had to restart your primary, personal use machine?

back in '92 when I was a kid, a friend of mine had one of those old macs with the color monitor built in... the one that would spit out the floppy if you dragged it to the trash bin. I thought it was really neat. I played around with it for the better part of a year. At my high school I basically acted as an IT guy for our library/career center macs. In 2000, I had a full time job that required me to do software testing on a mac for at least 2-3 hours out of the day. But by that time you're right, I didn't want to deal with it. In fact I dreaded it. Because if the '92 Mac seemed like an open sea of possibilities, the 2000 Mac was a container you had to contort yourself to get into. The industry had moved on you see, but the Mac hasn't.
Do you know what Mac model your "2000 Mac" was? Do you know which operating system it ran? It was most likely a leftover from the era of Gil Amelio, Apple's CEO before Jobs came back. They released some real crap during that time.

if you're going to accuse me of bias, at least have enough balls to admit your own...
I don't think I said anything about bias, nor did I deny being biased myself.

sure, if you like getting the job done with an eye closed and one arm tied behind your back while high on elicit chemicals.
This is ridiculous and irrelevant.

That movie is a much more common point of reference than any article on Jobs (except the one mention in the original post to all of us here). Speaking of which, Steve Jobs must be a genius in his own mind if he doesn't realize before speaking, how many people in the auto industry (some of whom may be his "fans") he put in the sh1tter by making those few blunt comments. If he was a designer working for Italdesign, I'd probably say "he has a point." But he "designs" plastic enclosures for a collection of parts one in the industry can get with rediculouse ease. You're kidding yourself if you think Apple designs a single stick of functional hardware they use in their machines or ipod or whatever else. He has no base to stand on. So forgive me if I don't take his word for it. And forgive me if I consider his comments asinine.
Common point of reference? Yeah, okay. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the movie was a dramatized version of what really happened, which was my point in the first place. If you're going to make arguments about a man's character, his equivalent character in a "based on a true story" movie is not exactly the best point of reference.

Do you honestly think Jobs wasn't trying to stir things up in the automotive industry?

Jobs doesn't design the plastic enclosures. Jonathan Ive does. Just because a lot more people actually care about the way a car looks doesn't mean that Ive and Jobs care any less. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Jonathan Ive is more meticulous about his designs than any automotive designer currently at GM. His dedication and obsessiveness are obvious in interviews, and it's really amazing the kind of attention to detail he puts into the physical design of a computer.

Apple designs their own motherboards. They purchase a lot of off-the-shelf components in order to keep costs from skyrocketing, but you talk as if a Mac is exactly the same inside as an x86-based PC. Obviously, that's not true.

for all intents and purposes you can consider your OS X as RedHat (since you pointed it out) with a MacOS emulator and a Mac "skin". So how does that make your point stronger? You're running UNIX didn't you know??
This is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they have "Aqua" skins for Linux. Go install one and let me know how easy to use it is.

hahaha!! I see your grandmother's email and raise you my grandmother's chat addiction... she doesn't even speak English... she had to paste Russian letters on the keyboard keys to have it make sense to her.

And besides, what's your point? Any browser looks similar enough running on any os. I wouldn't dream of making my grandmother setup ANY os. But she can program each of her 3 VCRs to record the shows she likes. Did you make yours setup a MacOS before she could check her email? I don't think so. I bet if I setup BeOS for her (assuming it was still just obscure instead of completely lost in oblivion) she'd feel right at home pulling open a web browser and downloading her daily puzzle game.
Okay, so this backfired on me, but only because your grandmother is actually fairly tech savvy. The grandmother thing is a way to point out how someone who doesn't know anything about computers can still use a Mac.

My grandmother's computer came with OS X already installed (like every new Mac), but yes, I would trust my grandmother to install Mac OS X on her own. It's that easy. All you have to do is click your location on a map of the world (to determine time zone and language) and enter your name.

I'm tired of reading your misleading, uninformed, and asinine arguments. I'm tired of you trying to make me feel stupid and failing. I'm tired of you. I don't want people like you in the Mac community. If, some day in the future, Mac OS ever has the majority market share, I hope you stick with Windows and suffer.

Please don't respond.

Battle Royale!

Im done with this convo.

Nothing like a good old Mac versus PC chicken fight. :)

But I do so love how the generic Mac user fawns over their Macs but when you ask them WHY they like it...

"Because it looks cool."

Case in point my girlfriend. I :bow: to Apple's brainwashing ermmm...marketing campaigns. ;)

Yup...never thought I'd come to a car board and find a mac/pc pissing match... :p

Nothing like a good old Mac versus PC chicken fight. :)

But I do so love how the generic Mac user fawns over their Macs but when you ask them WHY they like it...

"Because it looks cool."

Case in point my girlfriend. I :bow: to Apple's brainwashing ermmm...marketing campaigns. ;)

If I wasn't held to the criteria it must run either Solidworks or Pro-E, the fact it 'looks cool' weighs alot with me (maybe because I'm a designer, I dunno) and would probably sway me to an apple product, because it's not the typical gray box.

Intel, AMD, whatever. I kind of wish Apple was switching to AMD rather than Intel, but Intel's mobile processors are a lot better these days and I think that's a major deciding point for Apple to made that choice.

Windows 2000 was released on February 17, 2000. I suppose you're one of those uber-nerds that uses pre-release versions whenever you can get them. Whatever.

you got me, I was off by 2 months... :rolleyes:


You said "with all the gunk and gliz that's useless taken out." I said "with all the bells and whistles enabled." And I mean everything. True color, high monitor resolution (1600x1200), full text antialiasing enabled. All of it. Then you said you only use it as a NAT/file server. I'm talking about day-to-day use typical of a power user, including web browsing with tons of browser windows/tabs open, email, software development, chat, editing graphics, etc. My 450MHz machine handles all of that beautifully. There goes my challenge, indeed.

If my P2 cost as much as a new automobile when I originally bought it (like your Mac) it would have 0 problem handling all the things you mentioned. Not that I'd ask it to. I gutted 2k and XP for a reason. The same reason I don't want to deal with a MacOS. Useless doodads that just get in the way.


I don't know how you got this idea that I was talking about simple server machines. When's the last time you had to restart your primary, personal use machine?

I had another machine (a crappy Celeron 300A), I gave to my dad to use in the office. He used it for about 2 years. The only times it was restarted was the times I did it myself (not that often since I'm 400 miles away) or the times I told him to do it. It ran for months at a time without anyone rebooting it for any reason.

On my personal machine, I've had it running for almost a week. And even then I only shut it down to install a new piece of hardware (video card). Before that, who knows, maybe a month but probably more. Are you satisfied?

I really don't know why your particular PC is running so poorly and why you keep perpetuating this rebooting myth. But I can't relate to your experience there.


Common point of reference? Yeah, okay. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the movie was a dramatized version of what really happened, which was my point in the first place. If you're going to make arguments about a man's character, his equivalent character in a "based on a true story" movie is not exactly the best point of reference.

Do you honestly think Jobs wasn't trying to stir things up in the automotive industry?

Jobs doesn't design the plastic enclosures. Jonathan Ive does. Just because a lot more people actually care about the way a car looks doesn't mean that Ive and Jobs care any less. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Jonathan Ive is more meticulous about his designs than any automotive designer currently at GM. His dedication and obsessiveness are obvious in interviews, and it's really amazing the kind of attention to detail he puts into the physical design of a computer.

So if a GM exec (for example), or maybe some big shot from Boeing got up on a podium and start out by saying something like, "you know how you might think a Mac is the greatest thing until you want it to do something and it turns out you have to upgrade. but when you go to upgrade and you either find that upgrade doesn't exist or it costs arm+leg from apple." you'd be ok with that?


Apple designs their own motherboards.

oh, wow really? So does Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM (since before Apple), etc, etc, etc.


They purchase a lot of off-the-shelf components in order to keep costs from skyrocketing, but you talk as if a Mac is exactly the same inside as an x86-based PC. Obviously, that's not true.

exactly? of course not. no two PCs look exactly the same inside. But they look similar. Apple doesn't make anything that goes into their machines. Period. And that which they do "design" is something that has to be handled by ANY PC manufacturer that offers a full system with warranty and support. Dispense with your "Apple makes their own hardware" myth once and for all.


My grandmother's computer came with OS X already installed (like every new Mac), but yes, I would trust my grandmother to install Mac OS X on her own. It's that easy. All you have to do is click your location on a map of the world (to determine time zone and language) and enter your name.

when was the last time you bought a PC from a major vendor without windows preloaded? It's nearly impossible unless you jump through hoops.


I'm tired of reading your misleading, uninformed, and asinine arguments. I'm tired of you trying to make me feel stupid and failing. I'm tired of you. I don't want people like you in the Mac community. If, some day in the future, Mac OS ever has the majority market share, I hope you stick with Windows and suffer.

Please don't respond.
you picked on MY comment which wasn't even directed at you specifically. and now you're tired of ME? if you didn't want to hear back from me, why did you bother? oh, you were going to ride in on your high horse and "educate" me and I was going to agree with you, huh... next time you want to call someone an "opinionated ass", look in the mirror.

I thought all Mac users drove Volkswagons. What are you guys doing on a Camaro board? :p

you got me, I was off by 2 months... :rolleyes:


If my P2 cost as much as a new automobile when I originally bought it (like your Mac) it would have 0 problem handling all the things you mentioned. Not that I'd ask it to. I gutted 2k and XP for a reason. The same reason I don't want to deal with a MacOS. Useless doodads that just get in the way.

Amen.



oh, wow really? So does Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM (since before Apple), etc, etc, etc.

I don't know how Dell vs. Apple entered this, but peeps who want to lay down the law speed-wise with a PC DO NOT buy Dell.

They build their own.


exactly? of course not. no two PCs look exactly the same inside. But they look similar. Apple doesn't make anything that goes into their machines. Period. And that which they do "design" is something that has to be handled by ANY PC manufacturer that offers a full system with warranty and support. Dispense with your "Apple makes their own hardware" myth once and for all.

There you have touched on the crux of the discussion.

1) Apple folks want to buy something nifty looking that makes them feel different. Great. You're different. Meanwhile my PC is going to up and crush the performance of anything you care to buy from Apple... and whatever you happen to buy next, I'll crush it too. Little trip online to Newegg and we'll have the latest and greatest drop-shipped to my door.

2) Major-manufacturer PC folks want to buy a tool that completes certain tasks at a good price. The tasks may be technologically simple (word processing) or complex such as just running Doom3 at playable fps.

3) PC power users will BUILD what they want specifically to do certain things as well as possible... my computer is used for two, very particular things:

Recording music.
I play guitar and write music. I use Cakewalk, and Cakewalk is PC. ProTools has all kinds of nifty features but is pricey (without much of a return for a hobbyist like me). Cakewalk and the PC shine at being flexible and inexpensive - with no loss of sound quality.

Games.
I play games, and enjoy them. It's a good release valve to machine gun a few virtual Islamic extremists or virtual Nazis from time to time, and I'd like an ultra-low ping and ultra-high fps while I do it, thank you very much. Meaning that there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD I'm going to do it with a Mac.

4) There is no such thing as a Mac power user. You get a box, and I hope you like what's in it... because upgrading it is nearly pointless.

I thought all Mac users drove Volkswagons. What are you guys doing on a Camaro board? :p

I thought they all drove Insights and Prius's.... :p :D

Chris

You are wrong on so many counts. I feel sorry for you guys, because you've been mislead.

1. "Upgrading a Mac is nearly pointless."
I can get processor upgrades, RAM upgrades, hard drive upgrades, video card upgrades, CD/DVD/etc upgrades. I have three PCI slots, one of which has a USB 2.0 card in it (because four years ago when I bought this computer, USB 2 didn't exist), one has a gigabit Ethernet card in it (because I wanted a second network interface for a school project and because gigabit is cooler than my built-in 10/100 interface), and one has a SCSI card in it (which I don't use anymore, but was originally used for a scanner back in the day).

I have two hard drives, and I'm thinking about pulling out the internal Zip drive I never use anymore (came built in) and installing a third hard drive. I have a DVD-RAM drive, which, if I cared to do so, I could replace with a DVD burner. My next computer will have a DVD burner preinstalled, and I'd rather not spend the money twice.
2. "There is no such thing as a Mac power user."
I am a power user, no matter what operating system I'm on. On my Mac, I run all sorts of servers, I do software development, I do normal day-to-day stuff (email, web, Word, Excel, file management). I play the occasional game. I download open-source projects, compile them, and run them. I use Photoshop and other graphics apps.

How am I not a power user?
3. "Macs are more expensive."
Yes, the initial purchase price of a Mac is higher than that of a PC. But, in the long run, what matters more? Cost of entry or cost of ownership?

How much have you spent on computer hardware in the last four years? I spent $2400 on my Mac in 2001. At the time, it was one of three consumer-level computer models (all Macs) that was so fast that the U.S. government wouldn't allow it to be exported. It was classified as a supercomputer.

I've spent maybe $500 on upgrades since then (RAM, hard drives, video, and a couple cheap PCI cards). I'm talking only stuff that goes inside the case physically. No software, no USB hubs, no mice, keyboards, game controllers, monitors, printers, etc.

So, that's $2900 in four years. I'm not likely to spend any more for several months.

Funny joke. Too bad you can't spell Volkswagen.

K, simple contest...

PC vs. any Mac you care to mention, FPS vs. FPS on Doom3.

Here's a previous report... oh, and let me mention that this is from March, and that Nvidia has released their latest graphics cards which run in SLI to replace the 6800 Ultra(s) tested here.

http://www.barefeats.com/doom3.html

Some more telling comments:

"1. Though the G5 Power Macs held their own in the CPU tests, they brought up the rear on the 3D GRAPHICS tests graphed above. One reason may be the fact that all 3D games on the Mac run under OpenGL. The same game running on the PC using DirectX is almost always a lot faster."



Wait a second... isn't DirectX a product of... GASP... Microsoft???? The Evil Empire that can only produce buggy, nasty, non-workable, over-priced software????


When they went SLI with the 6800 Ultras, the following occurred:

"4. We had two of the GeForce 6800 Ultra cards in the Intel Dual Xeon and AMD Athlon FX55, so we were able to try out nVidia's SLI multi-gpu technology where you bridge two cards in adjoining PCI-Express slots. Once you enable the mode in the display driver, your graphics processing sub-system now has dual processors.

Though nVidia says performance will be "up to 2x," keep in mind that the bandwidth is shared and the memory of each card mirrors the other. In other words, there is no gain in bandwidth or memory capacity by linking the cards. The gain is in adding a second graphics processor. That's still a good thing. We saw an impressive 73% jump on the AMD Athlon FX55 in Doom 3 and 54% in UT2004 Flyby when SLI was enabled."


34-36 fps is a significant compromise in playability vs. a machine running at 106 fps. Alternately, you can disable the eye-candy so as to not bury the Mac due to it's woeful lack of 3D graphics power, or turn it full up on the PC and retain playability.


Read it and weep. Like I said, PC's OWN the game market, and games are what is pushing technology right now.

Great, PC's are terrific game consoles. Unfortunately, we need to do much more on our computers than play games, and in most functions, PC's prove far inferior and (gasp) slower.

And if the games are driving the market, then why are PC users stuck using a spit-shined version of Windows NT?

As a car enthusiast, you should know that raw speed does not equal the better machine. Speed can be had cheaply and easily. It's the overall design that matters.

Let's have another simple contest now.

Mac vs. PC, take a screenshot and format it as a PDF without any commercial software that didn't come with the computer.

It takes less than one second on a Mac. It's a three-key combination. PDF is the native screenshot format.

Right now you're all laughing at me, because it's a stupid, pointless little contest. Why would you ever need to do that? But that is exactly my point. To non gamers, your little contest seems just as stupid.

If I don't care what fps I get in Doom 3, because I'm not a gamer, then why the heck do I care that some computer other than the one I plan to buy gets better Doom 3 framerates? Oh, right, I don't.

The nVidia Quadro 4500 in the top-of-the-line PowerMac is a pretty damn good video card. I don't know what kind of fps it pulls in any game, but I know it's a crapload faster than my Radeon 8500, which performs just fine for most of my needs. (I say most because OS X 10.4 takes advantage of pixel-level shading to accelerate the GUI, and that feature wasn't supported before the Radeon 9xxx series).

If you absolutely must have bleeding-edge performance at all times, then yes, a PC is probably the way to go. Typical of the market, there aren't any Mac-compatible SLI cards yet. There will be, probably very soon, and then I think you should make your Doom 3 comparison again. I'm sure the PC will still win, but it won't be quite as embarrasing. You've chosen to make your comparison at a time when a revolutionary new technology is available for your platform, but not the competition. That works in your favor, but it won't last long. Mac SLI cards will be out soon.

Great, PC's are terrific game consoles. Unfortunately, we need to do much more on our computers than play games, and in most functions, PC's prove far inferior and (gasp) slower.

The latest generation of games drive computers harder than pretty much anything else you can come up with.


And if the games are driving the market, then why are PC users stuck using a spit-shined version of Windows NT?

Because it works.

And apparently according to the data, it works better than a Mac does at it.

If you disagree, I'd love to see the data.


As a car enthusiast, you should know that raw speed does not equal the better machine.

Because I search for speed in vehicles, I am an enthusiast.

Those who are not in search of speed might as well be buying refrigerators.

Unless it's fast, it's an appliance - and I really couldn't care less how "sexy" my toaster is.

The latest generation of games drive computers harder than pretty much anything else you can come up with.

That's just plain wrong. Scientific simulation applications for weather, nuclear technology, astronomy, etc. all require more CPU power than games.

Here's the thing: Games are written to run exactly as fast as the computer can go. It's called real-time simulation. Anything you do on your computer that requires you to wait is therefore more intensive on some component of your system. Ripping MP3s, converting DVDs to DIVX, whatever. If it doesn't happen pretty much instantaneously, then some component of your system is holding it back. There may not be anything faster anywhere on the market, but it's still being held back.

Server applications are one of the biggest drivers behind multi-processor and multi-core technology, because they typically use a lot of threads.

Games are easily the biggest driver behind video card technology. They have influence in other areas, but this is really the only area where games are truly the driving force.

Raw processing power (clock speeds and such) doesn't really have a specific driver behind it. Everyone benefits, and it is driven by the market as a whole. Games, scientific apps, MP3 ripping, etc. all have a share.

Unfortunately, every gamer on the planet seems to think that FPS in the latest and greatest game is the only reasonable means to measure performance.

If you shove a huge engine into a Fox-body Mustang and make it do the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds, is it automatically "better" than a Corvette Z06?

Data is nice, but doesn't always match reality. If it did, we could just search the back pages of Motor Trend, and choose the one with the best numbers as our favorite.

I know PC's are "faster." I also know that whenever I use a PC, whether for burning CD's, printing pictures, editing movies or anything else that is not playing KOTR, I can expect it to take longer and involve more frustration.

Unless it's fast, it's an appliance - and I really couldn't care less how "sexy" my toaster is.
Here you are again, thinking that your corner of the world is the only place to go.

A know a guy with a mint condition 1908 Buick. It gets passed by snails, but he still drives it to car shows in his area. Is his car an appliance? Is he just another driver, and not an enthusiast?

Wake up, open your eyes, and realize that your opinion is not the only one.

If games are the most important thing to you, then by all means, keep your PC. It's the right computer for you.

My priorities put the Mac ahead of the PC in a lot of ways, so that's what I buy.

That's just plain wrong. Scientific simulation applications for weather, nuclear technology, astronomy, etc. all require more CPU power than games.

Not all computers. Personal computers. In personals, games have pushed more technology into the box than anything else in the last few years.

My bet right now is that Doom3 resulted in more dollars spent on upgrading video cards, RAM, microprocessors and motherboards than any other piece of software... ever.

I'd be interested in other perspectives, but I think that one is a no-brainer.




Unfortunately, every gamer on the planet seems to think that FPS in the latest and greatest game is the only reasonable means to measure performance.

It's not the ONLY reasonable means, but it sure is the most evident. I've seen other benchmarks, but the rubber really hits the road there - RAM, motherboard, video card, sound card, microprocessor. Now, the sound card isn't going to hurt you too much at all, but a killer video card is useless without the micro, RAM and motherboard to back it up.

Video editing is another exceptionally intensive activity. I don't do any of it, so I don't really care, but I'd love to see a full-tilt PC compared to a top Mac in video editing.

If you shove a huge engine into a Fox-body Mustang and make it do the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds, is it automatically "better" than a Corvette Z06?

Data is nice, but doesn't always match reality. If it did, we could just search the back pages of Motor Trend, and choose the one with the best numbers as our favorite.

I know PC's are "faster." I also know that whenever I use a PC, whether for burning CD's, printing pictures, editing movies or anything else that is not playing KOTR, I can expect it to take longer and involve more frustration.

I was about to make a similar comparison. I bought a 2002 Z28. It's in very nice condition, and it looks good. It's pretty darn fast. It gets amazing gas mileage. It handles well. And it's going to last me a long time.

If my only priority was to go fast, I could have bought an old Moo-tang and had it in the 9's for a lot less money. It would be ugly, it would have ugly road manners, it would get crap gas mileage, and the body would only be in good enough condition to pass tech inspection.

And hey, if going fast is your only priority, then fine.

Most people with 9-second Mustangs have another car they drive every day, though. ;)

Video editing is another exceptionally intensive activity. I don't do any of it, so I don't really care, but I'd love to see a full-tilt PC compared to a top Mac in video editing.
That's not a fair competition, because there isn't any PC software that can compare to the stuff they use on the Mac.

Then again, last I knew, SGI is still the best, for now. Lord of the Rings was done on Macs, though, so we can't be far behind.

That's not a fair competition, because there isn't any PC software that can compare to the stuff they use on the Mac.

Then again, last I knew, SGI is still the best, for now. Lord of the Rings was done on Macs, though, so we can't be far behind.

Nah, I'm talking about home stuff.

There's a whole different world of machines for certain other applications. CAD used to be one of them, but Unigraphics has pretty much moved away from Unix boxes into Intel/Windows platforms.

Funny joke. Too bad you can't spell Volkswagen.
:cry: I will probably cry myself to sleep tonight over that isolated mispelling. If only I was a Mac user I would be smart enough to never make mistakes.

My bet right now is that Doom3 resulted in more dollars spent on upgrading video cards, RAM, microprocessors and motherboards than any other piece of software... ever.
So did Doom 3 outsell Half Life 2? I can find that each title sold over 3 million copies but no exact numbers to date.

No offense Pacer X but you are a very ignorant person...

I use apple and PC's, but I don't let my own loyalty to products get in the way of my common sense.

I recall you claimed that the most demanding test for a computer is video games... seriously man, you shouldn't even be arguing in this forum. I have no bias to PC's or apple, hell I use both in my house. Right now im on my apple. Maybe I'll go on my PC today, who cares.
Out of all 8 computers I have in my house, the apples are the ones that are easier, and I could say more enjoyable to use in my house, hands down. The OS is much simpler. No offense, but most of you only PC guys have minds that are stuck in little boxes when it comes to computer, (although that behavior does translate into all facets of your life).
Now the most demanding test for a computer isn't video games my friend (pacer x said that) , think hard....
Do you want to see some bench mark tests on apple vs PC? Besides your computer games, lol, I could find them, usually the competing PC's are behind the G5 apple computers. Here are benchmark tests for stuff other then computer games, lol I recall PAcer X said he doesn't care about video editing performance cause he doesn't do it, and hed also like to see some benchmarking on it. So here you go. Even if the numbers are exxagerated (cause the PC guys will say those are high cause its on apple.com) there is still a considerable performance difference.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Now there are older benchmark tests and Apple's rival companies have released computers somewhat faster since then. You may argue that this is unfair because PC companies have excelled since then.
Apple has excelled even more in that space of time. They have released the Quad G5, which has 4 64 bit processors, I would like you to note the speed of the bus and the fact that there is more than one bus. Also the buses have acces to the other processors cache. Something a PC can't do. This is an extreme processor advantage, and the fact that the velocity engines are much more efficient. This is why we can find such large differences between PC and Apple in these benchmakr tests. I also don't believe these application are designed for 64 bit processors, which puts all the 64 bit computers at a disadvantage. Here is the difference between the new Quad G5 and the Dual 2.7 G5 in the previous test.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/dualcore.html

OMG and you people who are saying Ipods are built like crap!?!?! And the screen scratches? Did you know an Ipod is a hard drive? And that it has an lcd screen, just like a laptop? Would you stick you laptop screen in your pocket without a case on it? It woudl get scratched? Would you carry around a computer hard drive bounce it around, and walk around with it, without buying a case for it? This is an example of people not knowing enough abour computers, then complaining. Apple sells, along with other companies, MANY different kinds of cases for Ipods, and theres a reason for it. Recently apple changed the Ipods to flashdrives, so that now, you don't have to worry about damaging a fragile hard drive Ipod.

I use apple and PC and like them both, they both have their advantages. I just thought I'd defend apple abit because you box head people just senselessly attack it so much!

2. "There is no such thing as a Mac power user."
I am a power user, no matter what operating system I'm on. On my Mac, I run all sorts of servers, I do software development, I do normal day-to-day stuff (email, web, Word, Excel, file management). I play the occasional game. I download open-source projects, compile them, and run them. I use Photoshop and other graphics apps.

How am I not a power user?

because you're resigned and contented to just work with what you're given by Apple. there's nothing to be ashamed of. believe it or not, but aside from coding you're John Q, Public. most people may not program, but i bet many know how to clobber together a web page. the problem for you, is that most people who are happy with what they're given are happier with a $400 eMachine that does everything you just mentioned than a Mac for $$$ more. And that's without all the stereotypical Mac user BS you keep attributing to PCs such as "i have to reboot my PC daily or it acts like an un-walked dog and pees on my carpet" or "you have no hope of running a PC sucessfully without having to 'play with it'" or some such. All nonsense.


3. "Macs are more expensive."
Yes, the initial purchase price of a Mac is higher than that of a PC. But, in the long run, what matters more? Cost of entry or cost of ownership?

How much have you spent on computer hardware in the last four years? I spent $2400 on my Mac in 2001. At the time, it was one of three consumer-level computer models (all Macs) that was so fast that the U.S. government wouldn't allow it to be exported. It was classified as a supercomputer.

I've spent maybe $500 on upgrades since then (RAM, hard drives, video, and a couple cheap PCI cards). I'm talking only stuff that goes inside the case physically. No software, no USB hubs, no mice, keyboards, game controllers, monitors, printers, etc.

So, that's $2900 in four years. I'm not likely to spend any more for several months.

the amount you spent on just upgrades + $150, I initially spent on a full system (and got to hand pick every component). Over the last 3 years I've upgraded the CPU, 3x for a total of less than $300, added verious components for maybe another $300. For a total of under $1500 over the last 3 years I can do everything you can but better; I have a more up-to-date system; I can run most of the latest games and enjoy them (even though I only play GT4 on the PS2 these days and even then only when I have the time); I burn DVDs at 8x; I can capture video; my CPU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103400) is overclocked 400mhz to 2.2ghz; it runs stable and cool at 35c Idle, 45c full load (Prime95); its QUIET as a mouse.... you get the picture. Now do you get the math? I spend half your cash, and ended up with a sweeter system. not only sweeter, but exactly the way I wanted it (within my budget).

so explain to me again this "cost of ownership" concept...

Let's have another simple contest now.

Mac vs. PC, take a screenshot and format it as a PDF without any commercial software that didn't come with the computer.

It takes less than one second on a Mac. It's a three-key combination. PDF is the native screenshot format.
oh, yeah, because saving a screenshot to PDF (a propriatary format) is totaly the most effective way to go, if all you want is a screen capture. :rolleyes: I'd save it to JPG instead in no time at all and it will take up 5x less space. If there's no need for me to be publishing PDF documents, WTF would I even bother with a PDF writer? If I DO need to publish a PDF doc, I can easily buy the writer with all the cash I saved by not going with a Mac in the first place.

good try...

if we're on the subject of software, how about this then: you take your Mac, and you go ahead and load the best available corporate level Mac accounting software (if any). invite a corporate accountant and ask them if they'd use it to do their financials and see if they don't laugh really hard and complement on how funny you are. then once the laughing subsides, ask them what they use and what platform they run it on.

The xbox did have a more advanced GPU then current gen PC's when it was released. Its technologically obsolete now, the same as if you bought a high end gaming PC at the same time XBOX debuted. Xbox 360 will again put it beyond current gen PC's.

Xbox 360 is impressive no doubt. But looking at its specs, you can build a computer that will run smoother while giving crystal clear, better looking graphics. Checkout how some future games look on the 360 then compare them to a top of the line gaming PC (games like Madden 06 and especially ES4: Oblivion). Its no comparison that the top dog gaming PC looks way better and will run better.

Consoles are great and are awesome for convenience and for playing top notch games without shelling out loads of dough to build a high end PC.

So did Doom 3 outsell Half Life 2? I can find that each title sold over 3 million copies but no exact numbers to date.

That would be an interesting figure to see. They're both great games. Yet another great one to pickup is Quake 4. That game is gorgeous with the Doom 3 engine and has fast paced action like the originals (Quake and Quake 2).

Xbox 360 is impressive no doubt. But looking at its specs, you can build a computer that will run smoother while giving crystal clear, better looking graphics. Checkout how some future games look on the 360 then compare them to a top of the line gaming PC (games like Madden 06 and especially ES4: Oblivion). Its no comparison that the top dog gaming PC looks way better and will run better.

Consoles are great and are awesome for convenience and for playing top notch games without shelling out loads of dough to build a high end PC.


Yea and not dealing with having to upgrade, patches(well this used to be true, we will see how it holds), and being able to take your game to someone elses house and be able to play it on their system. It's also not nearly as much fun to play game like madden when you don't have 4 people around a TV. Online just isn't the same.

Yea and not dealing with having to upgrade, patches(well this used to be true, we will see how it holds), and being able to take your game to someone elses house and be able to play it on their system. It's also not nearly as much fun to play game like madden when you don't have 4 people around a TV. Online just isn't the same.

That's the thing about game consoles, no need to worry about finding new maps, patches, and mods, and all the server oriented problems which come up with computers. Its all done for you, you just turn your game console on and play.
And the older computer games get, the more you have to keep them up.
I personally prefer computer games, even though there is the added hasle, on the other hand theres alot of people who enjoy Xbox more.

That's the thing about game consoles, no need to worry about finding new maps, patches, and mods, and all the server oriented problems which come up with computers. Its all done for you, you just turn your game console on and play.
And the older computer games get, the more you have to keep them up.
I personally prefer computer games, even though there is the added hasle, on the other hand theres alot of people who enjoy Xbox more.


That was my point, I prefer console gaming for all those reasons. I don't have the money to upgrade my computer for just games. I pay one fixed cost for a game system and then all I have to do are buy games. Considering the number of games to choose from, it makes better sense for me.

oh, yeah, because saving a screenshot to PDF (a propriatary format) is totaly the most effective way to go, if all you want is a screen capture. :rolleyes: I'd save it to JPG instead in no time at all and it will take up 5x less space. If there's no need for me to be publishing PDF documents, WTF would I even bother with a PDF writer? If I DO need to publish a PDF doc, I can easily buy the writer with all the cash I saved by not going with a Mac in the first place.

good try...

if we're on the subject of software, how about this then: you take your Mac, and you go ahead and load the best available corporate level Mac accounting software (if any). invite a corporate accountant and ask them if they'd use it to do their financials and see if they don't laugh really hard and complement on how funny you are. then once the laughing subsides, ask them what they use and what platform they run it on.


Wow morbid, you are getting desperate for comebacks. He is just giving you an example on how it was quicker to do something on an apple. ANd you said that isn't the best way to do it, and that you could just buy the software with the money you saved buying a PC.
Now I would call that avoiding his point. He was pointing out how some things are quicker to do on apple, and you just completely avoided it, without even giving back a proper rebuttle.
Now you claim using PDF is a dumb way, it isn't for some people.And your JPG argument goes out of the window because, you can do the exact same JPG thing on an apple. Why did you even use that one? Doesn't make sense to me...
And as you said to him, I will say to you GOOD TRY...
:rolleyes:
Next you said that you can just buy a PDF writer with all the cash you saved buying an apple. Since you obviously now nothing about apples and I do I will tell you something. Apple comes with ALOT of user software. Garageband, Imovie, Ical, Safari, yadayadayadayada, there's alot more. It comes loaded with software your PC doesn't come with. Even if your PC did come with them, the apple ones would be alot easier to use. I know this because I own both apple and PC. That may explain the difference in price. You would have to spend a considerable amount of money to get the software that the apple already comes with. Also I do believe that apple computers are over priced, even with the extra software.

Last Argument: I'll quote you on this "if we're on the subject of software, how about this then: you take your Mac, and you go ahead and load the best available corporate level Mac accounting software (if any)."

This shows exactly how ignorant you are. YOu don't know anything at all about apples. There is alot of accountant software available for macintosh. Just type it in google, if your willing to learn something of course.
And why would you ask an accountant if they would use the software on your own computer? This argument of yours goes right out the window also, because, well its ridiculous. Of course an accountant would laugh my friend, but not because its on a mac, like you said...
BECAUSE its not the software they are used to using. Why would they use that software when the software they are using for themselves is something the completely know how to use. Its like going to a right handed hockey player and asking him if he would want to use a left handed stick for his next game, like cmon man. The hockey player and the accountant would both have to learn to do what they do every day in a very different way. (MUHAHAHA I RHYMED)
Also why would a corporate accountant use an apple to do his financials when most of the corporate world is using PC? When his corporation is on PC? Do you know the compatibility issues he would have trying to run an apple when the rest of the business is using pc's? Like wow, you really need to think next time you post.
Like I said before, I have eight computers in my house, they are a mixture of apple and PC. I use them for computer graphics, digital video editing, and for my music. Sometimes I play games (but I get addicted so I don't really anymore). My family uses them for similar purposes. I don't have a bias against apple or PC.
One argument I have witnessed in this that I would take as valid against apple is the fact that you can't build up an apple. You get what comes in the box. Althought he PC guys take it to the exxagerative extreme. Its not that bad, you can upgrade them. And you can choose how much ram, memory, etc comes in them.
I'm just defending apple here cause you hardcore PC guys are just putting out completely ignorant garbage about soemthing you don't even know about. ARRRGGGG, its like hearing ricers talk about cars :mad: :mad: :mad:

Xbox 360 is impressive no doubt. But looking at its specs, you can build a computer that will run smoother while giving crystal clear, better looking graphics. Checkout how some future games look on the 360 then compare them to a top of the line gaming PC (games like Madden 06 and especially ES4: Oblivion). Its no comparison that the top dog gaming PC looks way better and will run better.

Consoles are great and are awesome for convenience and for playing top notch games without shelling out loads of dough to build a high end PC.


In this statement your forgetting one thing, for the same reason the Xbox even with far inferior Tech specs in todays market still gives PC games a run for its money, and that is everything in the box is purely dedicated to either video or audio. There is no dividing of resources for background operations.

Xbox360's GPU has only been laid onto paper, saying that you could build a better PC is completly off. The Xbox360 GPU is beyond ATI's current X1800, this is there best and baddiest and the Geforce 7800 (all class's) top competitor. There really is no comparing a counsle set-up to a PC, because its never going to be fair. On one hand for $500.00 every few months you can upgrade your GPU souly, but even then that doesnt stop the constant issue of PC Graphic performance. The resources are never souly for graphic output. The CPU is always running background applications which bottlenecks the GPU's full potential.

I had the privelage of playing Xbox360 the other day while Wal-Mart was putting out its Kiosik. Let me tell you, I have a Mid-High End PC, and the xbox360 even on a NON-HD LCD screen that was 20 inchs in size, the amount of detail in Kameo was on par with anything ive seen on PC, beyond most of it. Keep in mind these are first gen titles being rushed out for launch. Imagine what they will resemble in a months time.

Xbox360's will hold the GPU strength limit (not including the SLI cards) for atleast a month past its shipping, but in retrospect thats the same thing that happened with the Xbox. The Xbox had nothing more then a beefed up Geforce 3 TI500 in it, Xbox launched then a staggered Ti500 launched. Xbox at its time was on par, or slightly better then PC in graphics. Same will be said for the 360 at launch.

And to even compare Joe Shmoe's PC to the 360's stats is pretty bold.

PowerPC 3.2ghz Tri-Core CPU
ATI Custom GPU 500MHZ 32 Pipelines
1 TF of overall performance..

To tell me a standard PC or even a Mid-High is going to compete in the open market... I would have to question your sanity.

The only machine that im actually worried about is the PS3, its GPU by launch will be aged significantly. The Cell is a So-So Peice of hardware to begin with.. I wish them all the luck in the world with there $500.00 Video game consle.

Hey here is an interesting theory on why apple is going to intel. The ignorant person may think it is an apple bashing article, but it isn't. It is just a theory on why apple is making the move.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars

blah blah blah
i made 2 well written, well thought out and concise points. you wrote a 3 page rant on how you don't like people pointing out things you don't like to have pointed out to you.

if you don't understand the points I was making, direct your rant at someone else. /dev/null would be best.

P.S. there IS no corporate level accounting software for the Mac. if you're such a google hotshot, show me a single piece. just so my post doesn't go over your head completely again, I'll break it down into managable pieces just for you. what that means to you, is that for ever little "mom, look what I can do, because I think it's cool" on a Mac there's a "I NEED to do this because there's money involved and I can" on the PC.

P.S. there IS no corporate level accounting software for the Mac. if you're such a google hotshot, show me a single piece. just so my post doesn't go over your head completely again, I'll break it down into managable pieces just for you. what that means to you, is that for ever little "mom, look what I can do, because I think it's cool" on a Mac there's a "I NEED to do this because there's money involved and I can" on the PC.
So fine, if you're a corporate accountant, go buy a PC. Everyone else, including companies who care about the security of their information, would be better off with a Mac. It's interesting that you're a comp sci major who thinks it's natural for a comp sci majors to like Windows better.

I know plenty of comp sci majors who vastly prefer Macs, including one who had at one point told me that if given the chance, he would assasinate Steve Jobs. LOL.

And personally, I find that having a rock solid OS that never locks up and always works the way it's supposed to cool, but also quite necessary.

OK...I read the first two posts....don't have the time or the want to read the rest.

But he's got it wrong.

Design/Engineering/Marketing/Manufacturing/Financial sit in the meetings together.

They talk about the product.....what it MUST have....what it should have...what it would be nice to have. (among manymanymany other things) and then they work together to make it happen.

It does not go from design ....then to engineering.....then to manufacturing.

i made 2 well written, well thought out and concise points. you wrote a 3 page rant on how you don't like people pointing out things you don't like to have pointed out to you.

if you don't understand the points I was making, direct your rant at someone else. /dev/null would be best.

P.S. there IS no corporate level accounting software for the Mac. if you're such a google hotshot, show me a single piece. just so my post doesn't go over your head completely again, I'll break it down into managable pieces just for you. what that means to you, is that for ever little "mom, look what I can do, because I think it's cool" on a Mac there's a "I NEED to do this because there's money involved and I can" on the PC.

Actually I was just pointing out you compeltely avoided gross sexy's points by pointing out things that you thought were wrong with apple.
My parents office has accoutant next door, and they use apple, so I figured there was accounting software available, and the fact that I found some on google... But whatever, lets just say there is no accounting software for mac. I wasn't ranting I was bringing counter points to your points.
Just type in accounting software and apple or mac.
I find lots of hits. Maybe there is a difference between accounting software and corporate accounting software that I missed. If there is then I apologize, I'm wrong. I understand the points you are making, you don't. I don't think you read what I wrote back to you. Saying PC's can make Jpegs as a comeback to gross sexy's example of short cuts for PDF, is not a solid argument. Apples can make jpegs too. That is what im trying to say.

Thank you for breaking your last words in "manageable pieces" for me.
:bow:
And I would let you know that apple's are just not all "look mom what I can do" as you would say. Apple are machines too, and they can do media, in my opinion just as well and better than PCs. I use my apples for computer graphics (bryce lightwave, etc), music (finale), and digital video (final cut, etc). And I prefer using my apple's more than my PC's for these kinds of things. You may notice that alot of the media industry is on apple. Just to let you know, virginia state university bought 1100 G5s to create the world's third fastest supercomputer. It is known as the world's cheapest supercomputer as it was built at a fraction of the price of the others. Trust me my friend apples are not "look what I can do mom". PC aren't anything to laugh at either. Both sides offer solid performance. PC is a bit cheaper sometimes (but you have to factor in the extra software you get with apple.) They both have their advantages that why I have a mixture of both in my house. I reallly like playing video games on my PC instead of my apples. I use my apples for media. Tada. You have to get over your bias and see things for what they are. Anyways I'm out of this argument its just a waste of my time lol. I'm sorry for offending you , i did write some not very nice stuff, i went personal, and I apologize. I think our main problem is that we are VERRRRYYYY off topic.

ANNNNND Lets get back on topic! Steve Jobs is pointing out how sometimes the auto industry creates a great awesome concept that thrills the public, then when it comes to production it is not as glorious as the original idea is.
Now if you know anything about apple you will know about their design process.
If someone in apple has an idea he and if he gets approval he gets to be in charge of the product. He gets to be the head of the team that builds and design it. Its reward based. Since he is incharge of the design team etc, this means that the product that he had concieved in his mind in the first place will be the product that comes into production.
Steve Jobs was just pointing out the fact that in the auto industry you see a great concept that the croud goes bonkers over, then when it comes into production it is rather watered down. This is a fact. Why is everyone bashing him so bad? His compnay has fixed the concept production difference problem, I think he is in the position to bash the auto industry for it.

and another thing.......

I don't recall ever seeing one of Mr. Jobs' products being driven down the highway at a high rate of speed...........or crashing into a tree......or a car.......or a truck........or doing burnouts.........or (insert what-have-you)

Yup...."some" concept cars are cool......but invariably, they don't meet crash standards to begin with.......and we can go on from there.

Yeah. There's nothing Apple puts out that could very easily get someone killed if something goes wrong. I would take him with a grain of salt. He's always been a very outspoken and cocky, and his recent success has only enhanced that.

and another thing.......

I don't recall ever seeing one of Mr. Jobs' products being driven down the highway at a high rate of speed...........or crashing into a tree......or a car.......or a truck........or doing burnouts.........or (insert what-have-you)

Yup...."some" concept cars are cool......but invariably, they don't meet crash standards to begin with.......and we can go on from there.


You are missing the point I think. I have pretty much stopped goign to NAIAS because of the concept, probably will never be made, if it is made it will take 5 years and be watered down, issue.

For me, I would rather it all be done like the Vette was. Here it is, have a look, please buy one within a few months.

For me, an entusiast, I had seen the Solstice so much on tv and signs and GM websites, that when it had been 40 months from the time it was shown, until the time they started hitting the streets, I was already used to the car. Not bored with it, but I had seen it a LOT.

And there was destructive testing done on an ipod nano. Actually on the scale of the testing, NO car could stand up to it any better than the ipod did.

Here is the link. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/3

I have pretty much stopped goign to NAIAS because of the concept, probably will never be made, if it is made it will take 5 years and be watered down, issue.

For me, I would rather it all be done like the Vette was. Here it is, have a look, please buy one within a few months.

I disagree. I still recall how totally stunned I was when I saw the 1997 Grand Prix 300 GPX at NAIAS (must have been in 1996). I stood there amazed at how that car looked. It was simply, a magnificent and gorgeous design. And guess what? The production 1997 GT/GTP looked nearly identical. What a hit that car was for GM. It's been done before, and can be done again.

And this stuff about just waiting til the car is ready and then selling it, supposedly like the C6 was ( :confused: )... people on this board would NEVER stand for that! They want insider info and pictures published here, now, today, "hey what's taking so long?" :rolleyes:

If you saw the 1997 in 1996, then it was NOT a true concept. There is no way the "old" GM (or the new one for that matter) went from true concept to true production in that kind of time. It was probably a near production ready model, ummmmmmm, like the Vette was.

Do you honestly think that any automobile manufacturer gives a flying **** about our desire for insider information?

In fact, they do their best to not let it get out. And, if you think that all the opinions spouted on message boards have more than a blip on the radar presence in the development process of a new vechicle, then you are mistaken.

If that was the case, every car on the road would have 500 horsepower and a 6 speed maunal transmission. They would all be RWD.

And, the people on the boards would STILL complain about these vehicles.

On the subject comparison that I think Steve Jobs was making is that, when Apple announces a product, there is no concept or hint at something to come. When they announce something, it is available typically that day on their website for order. It has been tested, and works well.

He was simply commenting on how efficient they are at designing and releasing products.

No matter how streamlined GM says they are, the Solstice was a streamlined project and it took over 40 months to hit the street from the time it was a concept. That speaks for itself. I believe that the SSR has a smiliar story.

I am a huge GM fan. I have always owned GM products. I don't enjoy knocking them. My father is a retiree from GM with over 30 years with the company. He was in all different types of programs within The General and finished out the career in metal stamping quality as a problem solver roving from plant to plant as needed.

I am a loyal GM and Apple customer. 3 Chevys, 3 ipods, 3 macs in my house. 1 PC and 1 old laptop PC. 1 Jeep(wife's father worked for DCX and she is loyal, even though he tels her to buy GM)

If you saw the 1997 in 1996, then it was NOT a true concept.
Maybe not (what exactly is a 'true' concept, anyway?). My point was, that was the only Grand Prix concept/prototype/whatever the public saw before the 1997 GP was released, and it was indeed very close to the production model.
Do you honestly think that any automobile manufacturer gives a flying **** about our desire for insider information?
Obviously not. Just commenting on the absurdity of the behavior itself not the (unlikely) possibility of it having any of its intended effects.
And, if you think that all the opinions spouted on message boards have more than a blip on the radar presence in the development process of a new vechicle, then you are mistaken.
I don't... and I thank my lucky stars that is the case. Like you said, new cars would be a mess if carmakers relied heavily on the bizarre spoutings seen here. "I won't buy a new Z28 unless it has a slash in the name!" "I won't buy a new Camaro unless it has an impossibly low featherlight curb weight!" "I won't buy a new Camaro unless it has more HP than every current Mustang variant!"

Pass the Draino, RedPlanet :rolleyes:

Good points.

I see a true concept as something like the SSR was, or really the Solstice was too. The Charger concept was a true concept. Bel-air and SS were also true concepts in my book.

I disagree. I still recall how totally stunned I was when I saw the 1997 Grand Prix 300 GPX at NAIAS (must have been in 1996). I stood there amazed at how that car looked. It was simply, a magnificent and gorgeous design. And guess what? The production 1997 GT/GTP looked nearly identical. What a hit that car was for GM. It's been done before, and can be done again.
Yeh I remember seeing that one on the circuit too, which is pretty impressive considering I was 11 at the time. I can't remember what I wore yesterday but I remember looking at that and my dad saying he was going to buy one. It's in my college's parking lot right now.
This is going off topic a bit, but I also remember looking at that concept, and thinking how old the former gen GP looked sitting on the display next to it. I don't get that feeling with the current GP, nor really from the Impala or LaCrosse. They look different than what replaced them, but not newer.

I run on the other side of that fence, I really miss the wild concept studies that showcase a company's imagination resources than are a public preview and clininc of next years models.

Plus...what can't be made tomorrow doesn't mean it can't be made in 3-4 years, or a certain idea from a concept make it into a a current production model.

I just got the 'car design yearbook 3' and there are some wild (and great) idea in concepts (mostly from Europe it seems :( ) that I think we could see in 5-10 years (and remember...that's wewre designers start designer, 7 or so years from now).

Maybe because I'm a creative rofessional I prefer the 'what could be' as opposed to the 'what will be'.

No offense Pacer X but you are a very ignorant person...

I use apple and PC's, but I don't let my own loyalty to products get in the way of my common sense.

I recall you claimed that the most demanding test for a computer is video games... seriously man, you shouldn't even be arguing in this forum.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/


The best AMD processor on your data is an Athalon 64.

Back to your cave and abacus.

The best AMD processor on your data is an Athalon 64.

Back to your cave and abacus.

And pacerX as I said, these are old benchmark tests..... please read my whole post next time, and this thread is getting steered of course really badly.
This thread was... essentially about the automotive concept to production process.
Who cares about apples or pcs!!!!!!!

And pacerX as I said, these are old benchmark tests..... please read my whole post next time, and this thread is getting steered of course really badly.
This thread was... essentially about the automotive concept to production process.
Who cares about apples or pcs!!!!!!!

I did read it.

The fact that you would even post it demonstrates a desperation to prove a point that you yourself know is lost.

I imagine I could compare an Apple IIe to a 486 for some reason... like trying to prove a point I thought was lost in the first place.

Fact:
For the things that most folks do with their computers day in and day out, PC's are more than "OK". At the top end of the spectrum they pretty handily outperform Apple's products. At certain things in particular, they literally bury the best Apple can currently offer.

I think the point is salient for this reason:

Apple cannot outperform their competition, and are currently making their living selling a glorified Sony Walkman. iPod is neat... don't get me wrong... but let's call it what it is...

A computer is an appliance. It either does it's job well or it doesn't. I don't care what it looks like, I don't care what color it is, I don't care if other people like it. It's got to perform particular things in a particular manner (i.e. FAST) to do that job well.

Jobs is in no position to tell anyone how to do anything, particularly in an industry he apparently does not understand in the slightest... and particularly since the competitors in the industry Apple claims as a core competency (personal computers) have been pretty soundly trouncing his machines for years now.

http://macvspc.info/

Pretty crappy site, but hey I saw it as an ad on another site and figured I would put it in here.