In article ,
dave wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:



That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...Apple+Computer
cuhulin

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

In article ,
dave wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:



That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.

What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
years ago?

On 10/9/2011 4:35 PM, William Clark wrote:
In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:



That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.

What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
years ago?

Could have some relationship to the accelerated "dumbing down" of
schools and students which has been underway for decades ... no
motivation or interest in building their own computers or maintaining
up-to-date and state-of-the-art equip. for advanced use ... just want
canned hardware ... just sayin' ...

Regards,
JS

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

On 10/9/2011 4:35 PM, William Clark wrote:
In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:



That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.

What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
years ago?

Could have some relationship to the accelerated "dumbing down" of
schools and students which has been underway for decades ... no
motivation or interest in building their own computers or maintaining
up-to-date and state-of-the-art equip. for advanced use ... just want
canned hardware ... just sayin' ...

Regards,
JS

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

On 10/10/2011 12:13 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
In ,
John wrote:

On 10/9/2011 4:35 PM, William Clark wrote:
In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:



That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.

What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
years ago?

Could have some relationship to the accelerated "dumbing down" of
schools and students which has been underway for decades ... no
motivation or interest in building their own computers or maintaining
up-to-date and state-of-the-art equip. for advanced use ... just want
canned hardware ... just sayin' ...

Regards,
JS

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.


You should have seen my mother with a PC, virus after virus, email
sending spam to everyone in her address book, etc. Still, she would
never take a computer class, never would read a book, ...

The world breathed a sigh of relief when we insisted she have a MAC and
took away her PC ... it was then I realized PC's are like guns ... some
people just shouldn't be allowed to own one!

She now plays solitaire, emails and watches netflix without doing harm
to anyone else ...

Regards,
JS

On 10/10/2011 3:13 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.

Have you also considered economics? Macs ain't cheap...and once people
have all that Mac money invested, they might be reluctant to change.

I had my first Apple II back in 1981. Loved it! Then along came the Mac
-- closed architecture, NO expansion slots.

IBM PCs then came on the scene with -- whadda ya know -- open
architecture and expansion slots, an idea that Apple abandoned and IBM
adopted.

To this very day, IBM has TONS more ham radio, astronomy and science
software, expansion cards and applications than the Mac.

If you like a toaster/appliance, the Mac is just fine.

On 10/10/2011 4:21 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 10/10/2011 3:13 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.

Have you also considered economics? Macs ain't cheap...and once people
have all that Mac money invested, they might be reluctant to change.

I had my first Apple II back in 1981. Loved it! Then along came the Mac
-- closed architecture, NO expansion slots.

IBM PCs then came on the scene with -- whadda ya know -- open
architecture and expansion slots, an idea that Apple abandoned and IBM
adopted.

To this very day, IBM has TONS more ham radio, astronomy and science
software, expansion cards and applications than the Mac.

If you like a toaster/appliance, the Mac is just fine.

Valid point(s.)

Regards,
JS

On 10/10/11 11:59 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 10/10/2011 4:21 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 10/10/2011 3:13 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.

Have you also considered economics? Macs ain't cheap...and once people
have all that Mac money invested, they might be reluctant to change.

I had my first Apple II back in 1981. Loved it! Then along came the Mac
-- closed architecture, NO expansion slots.

IBM PCs then came on the scene with -- whadda ya know -- open
architecture and expansion slots, an idea that Apple abandoned and IBM
adopted.

To this very day, IBM has TONS more ham radio, astronomy and science
software, expansion cards and applications than the Mac.

If you like a toaster/appliance, the Mac is just fine.

Valid point(s.)

Except that some of them are not entirely correct.

I'll agree that Apple's hardware isn't cheap in comparison to
Windows-based PCs, but you're getting a fast, stable OS that is pretty
much tailored to run on the hardware - and while the hardware uses much
the same componentry as you'll find in any x64-based PC, the hardware
has been designed to be supportive of the OS, not the other way around.
This leads to a longer useful life of the hardware even once it's been
relegated to a secondary post-replacement role.

Apple has not abandoned the open architecture idea: it lives on in the
desktop machines outside of the iMac range. Last time I opened mine up,
there were slots. Lots of them, and compatible with various flavours of
PCI, SATA, and other standard architectures, as it happens. Yes, iMacs
are sealed units (effectively, though there are still upgrades that can
be performed on them), but so are the all-in-one PCs from major
manufacturers such as Dell.

As for the Windows platform having more software available for any
purpose (not just the ones mentioned): well, yeah. It does. But how
many variations on a theme are actually useful? I can't think of a time
where it's been better to have multiple software packages installed that
all do about the same thing rather than one that just does it well.

Also note that OS X can build and run a large chunk of the software
available for *nix systems as well (see: Macports, Darwinports,
Homebrew, and other port managers), so tools and applications already in
use on other platforms can typically be installed and used on a Mac.
End result: more software choice.

Please don't take away from this that I'm a Mac zealot (I'm really a
UNIX bigot) - it's just tedious to hear the same things said about the
platform over and over that aren't factually-accurate.

- x.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

On 10/9/2011 4:35 PM, William Clark wrote:
In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:



That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.

What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
years ago?

Could have some relationship to the accelerated "dumbing down" of
schools and students which has been underway for decades ... no
motivation or interest in building their own computers or maintaining
up-to-date and state-of-the-art equip. for advanced use ... just want
canned hardware ... just sayin' ...

Regards,
JS

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.

I had to use a Mac as a desktop system for two years when I worked for
Terry Mathews. Worst experience of my life, using a Mac. I had to use
the modified desktop reset device too often to ever want to purchase a
Mac. The modified desktop reset device was a paper clip.

PC's are much better bargain than the Mac.