[Archived] Macs

[Hasta]

In the latest copy of Macworld theres an article that states that the given figure of only about 2% of computers being Macs is misleading. The general point is that the general consumer figure is becomming a higher than that but as most major large companies use windows as their main busness platform that keeping the figure down.

The article writer states that alomst 10% of visitors to his non-mac related website are running OS X.

Out of interest can this figure be recorded for this site (and Lee if you're reading what about the official site)?

[Glenn]

In the latest copy of Macworld theres an article that states that the given figure of only about 2% of computers being Macs is misleading. The general point is that the general consumer figure is becomming a higher than that but as most major large companies use windows as their main busness platform that keeping the figure down.

The article writer states that alomst 10% of visitors to his non-mac related website are running OS X.

Out of interest can this figure be recorded for this site (and Lee if you're reading what about the official site)?

334178[/snapback]

Our's show a very different picture, without a lot of faffing I can only get the top 15 browsers (which includes OS info), and there are so few Mac users they don't register.

1 20.17% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET

2 13.80% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

3 7.59% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1

4 6.73% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)

5 3.52% Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gec

6 3.04% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)

7 3.02% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1

8 1.81% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)

9 1.65% Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gec

10 1.33% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; BT Openwor

11 1.32% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 7.54

12 1.09% Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.7.5) Gec

13 0.99% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 4.0)

14 0.81% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; YPC 3

15 0.79% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; FunWebProd

MSIE= Internet Exporer

NT 5.1 = XP

NT 5.0 = 2000

Gec = Firefox or Nutscrape

So, looking at those figures, less than 0.79% of visitors in June used a Mac, although 6.26% are now using some kind of firefox browser.

[Dr Gonzo]

Macs seem to be very prevalent in academia. Here at Ashworth Labs everyone uses them

[M-K]

I work at a publishing company where half of the staff seem to have been stealthily migrated to PCs over the last couple of years. That's around 400-500 users lost in one of Apple's core markets, so I wouldn't be surprised if even the 2% figure was an overstatement.

[Drummer Boy]

I switched from Windows to Mac about a couple of years ago, but don't know anyone else who has done so recently. This leads me to two questions:

Why are Apple unable to penetrate the market with what is clearly a better product (in my experience) than the current market leader?

I understand Apple, in rejuvenating their products, focused first on the US and japanese markets and are now starting to address the European market. Does anyone know how successful they have been in Japan and the US?

[Hasta]

Why are Apple unable to penetrate the market with what is clearly a better product (in my experience) than the current market leader?

334286[/snapback]

I think because the vast majority of software used both in business and at home is only available for (or in some instances such as Office only believed to be available) for windows. It's a bit of a catch 22 because developers won't write software for the mac as is only holds a small percentage of the market, and the market can't grow it's share due to lack of sotware.

From first hand experience I can say that many of the more common online poker sites only have their downloadable software available for windows. The ones that did reply when asked stated that they wouldn't commit to the development cost of the mac software as they felt the extra users wouldn't jusify their cost. (On a side note I dont believe this to be true. There are large numbers of mac users who want to play on reputable sites. Surely the first one that actually does it and publicises it will get a large intake of mac users as they've cornered a niche). It took Betfair 3 years to sort OS X compatablility and even now it only works properly with the clunky Netscape.

Despite looking after a deparment of about 15 macs at work and having one at home, I still have an almost obsolete Pentium II running Windows 98 at home just to get round the above.

Hopefully the release of the Mac mini will attract more casual switchers, especially those who have fallen in love with their ipods and want to see what else apple can do.

Glenn - Thanks for the figures. I thought the article was sky-high optimism.

[Drummer Boy]

I didn't know about the online gaming situation; however, I do know that Scottish Power can only be accessed on a Mac using Safari rather than IE - what an exciting life I lead!!!

In day-to-day use, what additional software does the avergae family/person need that is not provided by OS X in conjunction with Appleworks/Office (choose your poison)?

For the home media buff, there is iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD

iTunes is known by all

Garageband for next year's thing

iSync offers great compatibility with PDA's

PIM is sorted by iCal, Mail & Address Book - though IMO MS do this better with Entourage

PDF's? No problem

And it all comes as standard.

I accept the range of apps beyond this is limited but it is all out there, for example for MS Money read iBank, for MS Project read SharedPlan - all at a fraction of the cost.

Overall, accepting there are some glitches, I really do believe Apple have failed to market their strengths in this regard and allowed urban myths to spread that have become established in the minds of the market.

[Glenn]

One of the support guys at work, a life long Windows fan, bought a Mac mini at Christmas and we were all very impressed. Don't think I'd like one for myself, but next time my parents manage to kill their PC I'm certainly going to recommend one, because if you want a simple, easy to use, standard home PC for web browsing, listening to music and balancing your chequebook I don't think it can be beaten.

[M-K]

Why are Apple unable to penetrate the market with what is clearly a better product (in my experience) than the current market leader?

334286[/snapback]

Judging by my company's experience, it's cost. Designers need those huge G5s costing £2,000 a piece (monitor not included) because page layout software is miles better on a Mac. Everyone else gets a crappy little Dell that probably weighs in at around £300 including a 15" LCD. Web browsers are noticeably quicker on the Dells.

Even Apple's consumer machines are too expensive for the mass market - the £1,200+ it costs for an iMac would get you a much more powerful PC.

[Drummer Boy]

That's an interesting thought on the consumer market.

I have a 1ghz iMac using a G4 chip and my Mum has a 2.5ghz Sony thingy using Windows XP on an Intel chip. We can't tell the difference in terms of speed and processing capability using a variety of apps.

I think the Sony cost about £500 more than the Mac ..... though I could be mistaken on this. The Sony certainly cost more.

As Glenn says, for home use, a Mac takes a lot of beating - I know my Mum is coming round to this view.

The downside, as my children point out, is that games on a Mac are great ........ when you can find them!!! Most standard shops don't stock them and you're into online sourcing of a much smaller range of games.

Maybe that's the reason and it does lend credence to the observation someone made earlier about software developers being focused on Windows.

[Rovermatt]

I'm writing this on the iMac running on a high version of OS 9 in my room. There is an iMac downstairs that I also access this site with and my brother also has an iMac in his room, running on OS X. I've accessed the site from the PCs in university and in work but I very much prefer Mac products.

I'm not a computer expert but I find that Mac technology, while very user-friendly, is also quite fragile. The instances of freezing and crashing in all my years using Macs is very high. Too many demands on the system often results in the thing simply failing to function. The small number of Apple users means that it is very difficult to get these computers fixed. PCs on the other hand (and in particular Windows) are no where near as polished as the Mac output IMO, but are far more reliable and robust.

Edited August 8, 2005 by Rovermatt

[andy82]

You can build your own pc your to your own spec and change/upgrade it as you go. Apples just don't offer that.

[American]

OSX has cut down my crashes to the point they are almost non-existant. I can only think of one that has happened while I have been using the computer in all of the years I've been running any version of X.

9.x was definitely a different story.

Have to say, though, as a lifelong Mac addict, I have moved from the graphics side of my company to the application support side and am finding XP a pretty good system to work with. Might even have to break down and get a wintel box for home.

[Drummer Boy]

You can build your own pc your to your own spec and change/upgrade it as you go. Apples just don't offer that.

336953[/snapback]

This is not true - Apples are eminently upgradeable and there are a number of sites that explain how to do this.

[andy82]

This is not true - Apples are eminently upgradeable and there are a number of sites that explain how to do this.

337021[/snapback]

really? can you link one for me....

[Drummer Boy]

really? can you link one for me....

337094[/snapback]

www.macupgrades.co.uk

www.everymac.com

http://www.2ndchancepc.co.uk/

http://www.crucial.com/uk/promo/index.asp?prog=desktop2

http://www.axiom.co.uk/

http://www.lowendmac.com/

Here's a few to give you some idea of what can and cannot be done - hope it helps.

[andy82]

www.macupgrades.co.uk

www.everymac.com

http://www.2ndchancepc.co.uk/

http://www.crucial.com/uk/promo/index.asp?prog=desktop2

http://www.axiom.co.uk/

http://www.lowendmac.com/

Here's a few to give you some idea of what can and cannot be done - hope it helps.

337254[/snapback]

so its just the graphics card and the memory thats upgradable looking briefly at some of those sites? i'd quite like to build my own....

[Drummer Boy]

I think processor upgrades are also available as well as a number of other bits & pieces. I have to be honest and say that I have never looked into building my own Apple computer - I understand the PowerMac range are eminently user friendly but have no idea of the extent to which you can start from scratch. Given Apple is a computer company they may discourage such attempts but no doubt a quick Google will reveal all.

[American]

One of Apple's big shortcomings was that they are the only ones who make their main hardware. The only reason they "lost" the war was because they had a huge profit margins and wouldn't allow clones. Of course, when they did try to let clones be made, it failed miserably.

[mode_m]

Has anyone played with the mac mini or does anyone have one?

I am interested to know how it handles games etc.

[Drummer Boy]

I've just upgraded to OS X 10.4 - anyone playing around with the beta version of Windows Vista should get a look at this superb OS as a benchmark - it really is very good indeed and seems much easier than the XP I have to use at work.

Naturally, I shall come back in a week or so to report all the glitches and stuff I've found after the initial novelty has worn off but at the moment it is the greatest!

[Hasta]

Has anyone played with the mac mini or does anyone have one?

I am interested to know how it handles games etc.

338081[/snapback]

I think it would struggle with games. The 32mb graphics card is a bit of a let down on the Mac mini. I was setting one up for a friend last weekend and it felt a bit sluggish actually compared to the G4 powermacs at work.

With regard to macs being non-upgradable, until the ipod came along Apple made most of it's money from selling mac hardware. They sure as hell didnt want anyone else building the machines. Microsoft on the other hand sell Windows as an OS and don't care what your running on.

It'll be interesting to see how things pan out next year when Apple switch to using intel processors. Theoretically you would be able to install OS X and Windows on one computer. Even if they don't go that far emulators like virtual PC will run at almost full speed.

[M-K]

It'll be interesting to see how things pan out next year when Apple switch to using intel processors. Theoretically you would be able to install OS X and Windows on one computer.

338937[/snapback]

I was under the impression there was a lot more to it than just the processor - wouldn't the different motherboard make it impossible to run an OS on the 'wrong' machine? Somebody would probably have to hack the OS.

[Hasta]

I was under the impression there was a lot more to it than just the processor - wouldn't the different motherboard make it impossible to run an OS on the 'wrong' machine? Somebody would probably have to hack the OS.

339030[/snapback]

Officially it looks like the new macs won't support Windows but may be able to run it. There's lots of talk on the web about it. Bit of info here.

[mode_m]

there have already been several accounts of ppl running tiger on ordinary pc's using this software OSX 86 or something.

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-h...an-ordinary-pc/

it works like an emulator but apparently runs very smooth on higher end pcs.

the OS is derived and cracked from the developers version currently being used to work with the new intel chips.

this is good news, I look forward to running a dual boot on my machine with both windows and mac os.