You can't really buy garbage grade hardware on a mac. People buy $400 windows laptops and when they suck they blame it on the OS rather than them being cheap.
I've used both OS's extensively. I think a large part of the perception of OS X being better than Windows is because OS X has a hardware standard.
Yes, and it's a huge advantage.I've used both OS's extensively. I think a large part of the perception of OS X being better than Windows is because OS X has a hardware standard.
The problem is you never know what's going to work and what isn't, when it comes to software upgrades and even worse, OS upgrades.You can't really buy garbage grade hardware on a mac. People buy $400 windows laptops and when they suck they blame it on the OS rather than them being cheap.
Almost all Apple laptops (the aged 101 [the 13" NON retina Pro that they keep selling for... reasons] being the only outlier), the Mac Mini, and MAYBE the 21" iMac have soldered RAM. The 21" certainly doesn't have user accessible RAM, whether it's ultimately removable or not, I'm not sure.
The 27" iMac has user accessible/serviceable RAM, as does the Mac Pro.
I was considering getting a 27" iMac for my wife and was checking out the different loadouts on them.
To go from 8GB memory to 16GB is $200 when the entire 16GB kit probably costs about $50-$70 retail.
Fusion drive to 512GB SSD is $200 when that's around the retail price of a top of the line consumer 512GB SSD.
$250 to go from i5 to i7 Haswell. The combination of overpricing and last gen processor is baffling.
I remembered that Apple overcharged for upgrades but these are way out there...
Apple was not using Motorola processors and SCSI drives just to be different. The original Macintosh in 1984 had a Motorola CPU. At the time, Intel chips were just one of many competing standards. The first Mac with SCSI was the Mac Plus in 1986. Again, at this time, IDE was hardly a universally-accepted standard. Putting aside the fact that nothing was stopping PC users from getting a SCSI card for their machines, Apple was not still using SCSI when SATA became the standard. By the mid to late 90's, they had switched to IDE, and they switched from IDE to SATA the same time the PC industry did.I still find it funny how Apple was in terms of trying to be so different from the Windows Personal Computer that they refused to use any hardware technology that could have been construed as originating from PC, and hence Windows.
Intel? F-that. IDE/SATA? "We are SCSI!" Etc.
What does this even mean?Attention Apple, you are still buying Intel as a function of Microsoft
What coding? Right-click the thing you want to make a shortcut to and click "Make Alias." There. You now have a shortcut.And while I have since been told that this is an easy thing to do you would not believe what kind of Anandtech and Macrumors assistance I had to get over a month period to code this into existence. Seriously? I hate coding. I'm too lazy to do it. I could if I had to, but guess what? I don't do it professionally ... because I hate.
You can't really buy garbage grade hardware on a mac. People buy $400 windows laptops and when they suck they blame it on the OS rather than them being cheap.
Yet they still only have ~12% of the computer market.
I wonder since everything is converging what the % will be if iPads were included as well. Since MS has come out with Surface tablets/laptops that are hybrid devices.
"Computer market" doesn't mean what it did even 2 years ago.
@Subyman
the argument that "just works" implies that Windows doesn't. You know fully well that even XP was stable, and only failed when the user pushed it by installing tons of freeware.
Yet they still only have ~12% of the computer market.
I don't think Apple is really focused on computing anymore. There margin is in mobility toys. They are a tablet and cell phone company than anything else. They go where the money goes easily from the stupid.
Apple wanted to pivot to being a more mainstream product. Their ads did that and they were ingenious and produced huge results for the company. I agree that Mac was and somewhat still is the industry standard for design applications and that pretty much only super nerds used them at the time, so the ads were dubious. The ads were meant to change Apple's image, which they handiedly did.
As for giving a more user friendly item to someone who is completely disinterested in learning about technology being a disservice to them, I do not agree. People have different interests and you can't expect every single person to fully understand everything they use on a daily basis. People have very busy lives and need the things in which they rely on to "just work."
The money is in the App store. The hardware is just the platform to deliver it.
That's not really what the revenue numbers bear out.
iPhones and ipads make up almost 80% of apple's quarterly income, macs make up about 9%, and the app store + itunes is more like 8%.
The "real money" is in their hardware, but the existence of a regulated app store makes the hardware environment more appealing to buy into.
Right, that's gross though, not net, right? I imagine the app store is almost pure profit, whereas iPhones/iPad have overhead. Of course, they did almost no work on the iPad this year (just put the 12.9" internals into already existing 9.7" form-factor) and up'd the cost so profit percentage has to be pretty healthy there.