Dell or Apple Laptop? Watch

5150
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by Mr. Fox)
I would not be surprised if Microsoft alter their EULA or the way the operating system functions in order to prevent Vista from being used on Apple hardware.
This is a moronic suggestion for so many reasons, the most obvious one being: why would Microsoft NOT want people to buy copies of Windows to run on their Apples? Like most companies, Microsoft likes people to buy their products.
0
quote
reply
hybridchild
Badges: 0
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
(Original post by digitalparadox)
Thanks for the responses. I would generally be using the laptop for work, photos, music, internet and the odd DVD. I may also want to get an external tv card to connect if needs be.

Im in exactly the same situation, got around 700 quid to get a laptop for uni, trying to decide Dell or Apple, and will use it for Music, tinternet, Dvds, and work! What does evryone think for them uses? are laptops ok for dvd playing or are they a bit sketchy (LIKE MY PC!)? lol
0
quote
reply
digitalparadox
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by 5150)
I had a Dell from September 2003 until about three weeks ago. I now have a MacBook, and I much prefer it. It looks better, it runs better, and it feels better. If you have the means, I strongly recommend the Macbook.
I suppose, but wouldn't everything new seem better?
0
quote
reply
Navajo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by hybridchild)
Im in exactly the same situation, got around 700 quid to get a laptop for uni, trying to decide Dell or Apple, and will use it for Music, tinternet, Dvds, and work! What does evryone think for them uses? are laptops ok for dvd playing or are they a bit sketchy (LIKE MY PC!)? lol
Na laptops are perfect for DVD's
0
quote
reply
5150
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by digitalparadox)
I suppose, but wouldn't everything new seem better?
That is very true, new toys are always cool. But no matter how you slice it, this MacBook is a better, faster machine than my old Inspiron, even though they have similar (in fact, near-identical) specifications. It boots up in less than a minute, its battery lasts twice as long, OS X is gorgeous...et cetera. The only things I miss are .wmvs and online poker, but even then there are ways of viewing .wmvs with a minimum of hassle and I shouldn't really play poker this close to my finals!
0
quote
reply
Mr. Fox
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by 5150)
This is a moronic suggestion for so many reasons, the most obvious one being: why would Microsoft NOT want people to buy copies of Windows to run on their Apples? Like most companies, Microsoft likes people to buy their products.
Perhaps because it encourages people who wouldn't usually touch a Mac to perhaps try one? I'm the moron? Is your economic judgement of the situation limited to the contents of an initial lesson of GCSE Business Studies? Clearly you're envisioning a world in which people buy operating systems and hardware as they do now - only that the Mac users can also use XP. I hugely doubt that Microsoft want to allow the generation of interest in Apple's hardware and software.

I'll leave it to you to work out why Apple making money isn't good for Microsoft.
0
quote
reply
5150
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by Mr. Fox)
Perhaps because it encourages people who wouldn't usually touch a Mac to perhaps try one? I'm the moron? Is your economic judgement of the situation limited to the contents of an initial lesson of GCSE Business Studies? Clearly you're envisioning a world in which people buy operating systems and hardware as they do now - only that the Mac users can also use XP. I hugely doubt that Microsoft want to allow the generation of interest in Apple's hardware and software.

I'll leave it to you to work out why Apple making money isn't good for Microsoft.
Which leads me to another reason that your suggestions don't hold water: Microsoft don't receive a royalty from the hardware that comprises a PC. If a consumer buys XP and installs it on their Mactel machine, Microsoft have made more money from this consumer than if the consumer purchases a computer with an OEM version of XP on it, because OEM licenses are purchased in bulk and cost less per unit than boxed copies.

So, not only has this consumer spent money on Microsoft that he would otherwise not have done, he is a potential customer for all of Microsoft's software that isn't available for OS X. From Microsoft's perspective, he is of the same value as a customer with XP on an Acer, or a Dell, or a Lenovo. If anybody should be afraid, it is the PC manufacturers - they have everything to lose, and Microsoft has everything to gain.
0
quote
reply
bedbug
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
I'd go for the Dell purely because I prefer Windows systems to Mac ones. It's what I'm used to so I find it far easier.
0
quote
reply
hybridchild
Badges: 0
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by 5150)
Which leads me to another reason that your suggestions don't hold water: Microsoft don't receive a royalty from the hardware included in a PC. If a consumer buys XP and installs it on their Mactel machine, Microsoft have made more money from this consumer than if the consumer purchases a computer with an OEM version of XP on it, because OEM licenses are purchased in bulk and cost less per unit than boxed copies.

So, not only has this consumer spent money on Microsoft that he would otherwise not have done, he is a potential customer for all of Microsoft's software that isn't available for OS X.
Yes, but thats at a very simplistic level, Its not for profit reasons they would make vista unavaliable to run on macs (as you explained), its more to do with brand image and market share.

Microsoft obviously are both brand conscious and market share driven (storys of buyouts and monopolistic practices and such), so allowing a competitor to "steal" market share from under its nose, is not something they will not want to be allowing.

Also the argument made earlier that it could encourage otherwise loyal customers to experiment with macs...
0
quote
reply
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
I'd prefer to use a Dell - and thats saying something! :eek:
Having a Mac is a mindset - its an attention whore's laptop. You buy a iBook to make people go :eek: doesn't that laptop look smart! That's the only benefit of buying a Mac. PCs are no longer the "lame duck" mac fanatics think they are - particularly with Intel's new range of x86 Pentium M Core Duo's etc.

I wish some PC manufacturers would just bring out laptops in lovely white plastic. I'm sure they's sell like hotcakes!
0
quote
reply
5150
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
(Original post by hybridchild)
Yes, but thats at a very simplistic level, Its not for profit reasons they would make vista unavaliable to run on macs (as you explained), its more to do with brand image and market share.

Microsoft obviously are both brand conscious and market share driven (storys of buyouts and monopolistic practices and such), so allowing a competitor to "steal" market share from under its nose, is not something they will not want to be allowing.

Also the argument made earlier that it could encourage otherwise loyal customers to experiment with macs...
I don't understand what market share Microsoft loses if people purchase XP/Vista to run on their Mactels. Surely, now that the potential XP/Vista userbase includes all those who own Mactels, MS have an opportunity to sell more software?

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
Having a Mac is a mindset - its an attention whore's laptop. You buy a iBook to make people go :eek: doesn't that laptop look smart! That's the only benefit of buying a Mac.
Yeah I got a MacBook because I want people to think I'm cool :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
hybridchild
Badges: 0
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by 5150)
I don't understand what market share Microsoft loses if people purchase XP/Vista to run on their Mactels. Surely, now that the potential XP/Vista userbase includes all those who own Mactels, MS have an opportunity to sell more software?
Yeah i suppose they aren't losing actual software market share, one just tends to assume microsoft makes money from PC's not just the operating system.

However, saying that i think in the long term, more Macs would eventually impact on Microsofts sales. So by preventing Apple from getting a foot in the door, and making Vista unable to run on macs; the problem could be stopped before its had time to damage sales?

But i think if they did make Vista unable to run on macs, it would be just as much for the reason of "saving face" than it would for profit saving?


And yes that white plastic is enticing! :-p
0
quote
reply
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by 5150)
I don't understand what market share Microsoft loses if people purchase XP/Vista to run on their Mactels. Surely, now that the potential XP/Vista userbase includes all those who own Mactels, MS have an opportunity to sell more software?
No, because Macs come with OSX preinstalled. Billy boy would happily see Steve, Jobless - if you catch my drift. That pretty much guarantees that people will use Microsoft stuff whereas people have choice if Apple still lives.



Yeah I got a MacBook because I want people to think I'm cool :rolleyes:
Indeed. :p:
0
quote
reply
5150
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by Mad Vlad)
No, because Macs come with OSX preinstalled. Billy boy would happily see Steve, Jobless - if you catch my drift. That pretty much guarantees that people will use Microsoft stuff whereas people have choice if Apple still lives.
People have had the option of choosing between Mac and Microsoft for over 20 years, and somehow both companies have survived. Now, for the first time, a Mac user is able to purchase Windows. This is an opportunity to make money that Microsoft simply haven't had before.

Also, if Microsoft was committed to the eventual destruction of Apple, would they have released a free version of IE for Mac? How come Microsoft manufacture Office for OS X?
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
(Original post by 5150)
People have had the option of choosing between Mac and Microsoft for over 20 years, and somehow both companies have survived. Now, for the first time, a Mac user is able to purchase Windows. This is an opportunity to make money that Microsoft simply haven't had before.

Also, if Microsoft was committed to the eventual destruction of Apple, would they have released a free version of IE for Mac? How come Microsoft manufacture Office for OS X?
I don't understand why anyone would want to run Windows on a mac, unless they already had a mac that they weren't satisfied with. Why would you forgo the cost effectiveness, scalability, flexibility and customisational ability of a PC for a more expensive, rigid and inferior Mac hardware based computer, when you're going to run the same OS on them anyway?

Also, of course, since Microsoft have yet to, and for all we know may never do, recognise mac hardware, who's going to write drivers beyond the default windows one for the mac-specific hardware?
0
quote
reply
5150
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by DanGrover)
Also, of course, since Microsoft have yet to, and for all we know may never do, recognise mac hardware, who's going to write drivers beyond the default windows one for the mac-specific hardware?
Bootcamp comes with them.
0
quote
reply
Ditting Suck
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by digitalparadox)
I've had a laptop for a couple of years now but want to get a new one for uni - my friend keeps urging me to get an apple but i'm still not sure if they are worth the slightly extra money just for the looks.
If you think the only difference is the looks, get the Dell.

Macs are better systems - not because they are faster (the top-end Macbook Pro specs are equal to top-end Windows-based laptops), not because they are better for design apps (negligible if any difference these days), not because of looks (though this may bother some people), but for one (admittedly large) reason: OSX.

OSX is a safer, smoother, faster, simpler and prettier operating system than Windows. It does not suffer from viruses, you don't have to defragment every two minutes, it just doesn't crash, and idependent tests have shown that an accomplished OSX user is more productive than an accomplished Windows user simply because the OS allows you to work faster.

That's not to say there aren't serious problems, the most obvious being the thing you mentioned: price. Other issues include incompatibility with certain software (though Boot Camp is obviously adressing this admirably if you can get hold of a copy of XP SP2), and lack of upgradability, as well as other useful features such as memory card readers, etc..

It depends on how willing you are to pay the premium, and learn a new OS.
0
quote
reply
Ditting Suck
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by DanGrover)
I don't understand why anyone would want to run Windows on a mac, unless they already had a mac that they weren't satisfied with. Why would you forgo the cost effectiveness, scalability, flexibility and customisational ability of a PC for a more expensive, rigid and inferior Mac hardware based computer, when you're going to run the same OS on them anyway?

Also, of course, since Microsoft have yet to, and for all we know may never do, recognise mac hardware, who's going to write drivers beyond the default windows one for the mac-specific hardware?
Boot Camp comes with (nigh on) full Windows drivers. And it has already been stated that Vista will be supported under a similar system. The bottome line is that macs will be able to run Windows fully and completely at the same speed as similarly specced PCs in six month's time.

As to why people would want to run Windows: the most obvious example for me are switchers, who want the benefits of OSX most of the time, but are forced to stick with Windows for one or two applications which don't have OSX equivalents.

Or silly people who just want a nice-looking PC, of course.
0
quote
reply
Mr. Fox
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by 5150)
Which leads me to another reason that your suggestions don't hold water: Microsoft don't receive a royalty from the hardware that comprises a PC. If a consumer buys XP and installs it on their Mactel machine, Microsoft have made more money from this consumer than if the consumer purchases a computer with an OEM version of XP on it, because OEM licenses are purchased in bulk and cost less per unit than boxed copies.

So, not only has this consumer spent money on Microsoft that he would otherwise not have done, he is a potential customer for all of Microsoft's software that isn't available for OS X. From Microsoft's perspective, he is of the same value as a customer with XP on an Acer, or a Dell, or a Lenovo. If anybody should be afraid, it is the PC manufacturers - they have everything to lose, and Microsoft has everything to gain.
Did you not understand my previous post?

From the outset, it simply isn't practical to use two operating systems. I'll come back to this.

Software distribution is VASTLY different to OS distribution. What you're completely ignoring is the fact that by allowing XP/Vista to run on Apple hardware, it's likely to influence someone already stupid enough to be considering the possibility of buying a Mac. Anyone that buys a Mac with intention to run Windows on it is buying both hardware and software from Apple.

Whilst of course Microsoft get to sell some retail software, there are two main problems with this:

1. People are paying Apple ridiculous premiums for their hardware. Apple making money is not good for Microsoft. Apple cannot afford the level of investment into their operating system and software that Microsoft can. It's much better for Microsoft if things stay that way.

2. People will be running OS X - perhaps even if they wouldn't ever have done before. Sure, there's Microsoft software for OS X - but MS would much rather have people using this software on WINDOWS, especially with their new OneCare protection and other Windows exclusive apps. Using OS X will create a brand loyalty and of course profits for Apple with their yearly updates. As I've already stated, Apple making money is not good for Microsoft. Apple gaining market share is not good for Microsoft. Your point about hardware is null. It is NOT the same as people running a Compaq or Toshiba machine and choosing to use Microsoft software on it.

It doesn't make sense to run two operating systems. The key features of OS X and Windows are essentially the same. They are competing products. It is better for Microsoft if everyone uses Windows.

In short, Microsoft will not be willing to support Apple's profitability or userbase beyond what they consider to be detrimental to their business. The fact that Microsoft develop software for OS X means that their market analysts have decided that it will be profitable but not damaging to the sale of Windows.
0
quote
reply
scutt
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
I've got a Mac, i love it. I enjoyed my PC when i had it, too. IMO there's now no reason to *not* get a Mac, other than the price. You can run Windows if some of your educational software requires it, and use OSX as a main OS if you wish. If you don't want to run OSX at all.. get the Dell. Simple. *shrug*

Also, Microsoft are working with Apple to ensure Vista runs on x86 Macs. There was a news article on ArsTechnica this week concerning it. I don't care to find it, because i don't care to get involved in the ridiculous OS war, but just thought i'd let y'all know.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (90)
25.86%
No (258)
74.14%

Watched Threads

View All