As a student, The school board that I am in now Amalgamated about 10 years ago from 2 seperate school boards due to funding, when macs were particularly popular for education. One board that used macs, and one that used pcs. To this day they fight over the decision to use PCs, now, more than ever, from the move to intel, and the people on the PC side, are starting to regret it too. Since they can make absolutely no decisions, we have Levovo desktops and Laptops, with Apple Airport extreme wireless, and absolutely no reason as to why. As well as a handful of Mac Pros. We have never, ever had any problem with the Macs, and I mean never. The PCs, on the other hand, are a completely different story. I have not used one yet that has worked well, and there are many, and I use them often. If they are working, they are usually being updated and bug fixes installed. Effeciency means alot to a student, we have a wonderful Technology program that gives the school new equipment every year, but when you cannot use that equipment to do even the most simple task, it ruins every reason to have that equipment availible. We are very lucky to have Adobe Creative Suite CS2 and Macromedia Software on every computer in the school, but when it doesn't work, it doesn't help you learn. That is why I choose to use the only macs in the school, becuase they are the only computers, that are actually usable.

If your school technology dept couldn't get PC to run smoothly. I have a solution for you. REPLACE ALL OF THEM.

If I read your comment correctly, you just claim the Mac is perfect, because it NEVER requires any update.

That is why I choose to use the only macs in the school, becuase they are the only computers, that are actually usable.
And I thought the university I used to work at, putting myself though school, was bad. If your school couldn't keep lab computers clean, I wonder at their general technological competence. At least all the computers at my school had a program called deep freeze on them; all you had to do to clean the PC was to reboot it.

Oh no, a fanboy.. (Edit: NOT you justwork! The reply was to the MS fanboy to which I responded who thinks its cute to replace them all in his cute interpretation ...)

No, Macs never never never need updates. In fact, if they ever do, they update themselves without an administrator. They will even update your Windows box (of course that will keep them bus and off the streets and out of the bars.)

In fact, from what I read, the Macs actually develop perfectly architected additional code and features and functionality during CPU idle time, without even being prompted, thus allowing developers to do other things like check their email and cruize Internet porn sites.

The irony is that most MS fanboys will miss the sarcasm. Not surprising as they are able to delude themselves regarding the quality and elegance of Windows. We see what we want to see...

Give it a rest.

sounds just like the highschool i graduated from. they had no technological skills whatsoever, although i dont think even the macs ran smoothly. then again we had a lead tech who looked like joe dirt.

I know they require updates, which is another one of the schools flaws, the only person that has an administrator password, is the IT department, which can never be there, so the Macs are not updated nearly as often as they should be. And yes, the school does have deep freeze, but when the programs were not set up correctly when they were installed, deep freeze doesn't help. I suppose the school could replace ALL of them, but that wouldn't really make sense considering that they were JUST replaced. Unless of course they were replaced by macs, that might help. I most certainly am NOT a fanboy, quite the opposite actually, I am always open to new ideas and concepts, I have just had too many problems with Windows to really care anymore.

And yes, the school does have deep freeze, but when the programs were not set up correctly when they were installed, deep freeze doesn't help.
And that is a problem with Windows? Sounds more like a problem with your IT dept.

Does anyone know how many of those 1.61 million Macs were bought by first time Mac users and how many were from the Macheads upgrading to Intel??? Because even with Apple's record sales they're still hovering around 3.7% for the market.

The Apple laptop market pecentage was reported about a month or so ago at >15% of the total laptop market.

You really need to be careful to qualify the specs regarding marketshare, as it is so easily to define a segment according to your 'political purpose'.

By whom? Last I looked, Apple's GROWTH was 15%/year.

Who reported the percentage you reference?

Why do people on this forum submit claims without any references to legitimate source to back up those claims? Doing so would eliminate a lot of the fluff

I found this:

"A little more than half of the 323,000 computers sold in Apple's retail stores during the quarter were to people who had never owned a Mac before, Apple's chief financial officer Peter Oppenheimer said during an analyst conference call. "We were thrilled by that," he said."

from:
http://apnews.myway.com/...20061018/D8KRBGR80.html

So where is YOUR source??????
You might want to look again and this time read for meaning. And quit wasting our time with your unfounded claims!

Here is a June 2006 source that reports Apple's laptop market share at 12% - and it is just one of many -
http://money.netscape.co...t-12-percent-and-rising/

And I will dig out the source for the updated figures reported in one of he IT trade publications just recently.

I will become a first-time Mac buyer this spring. I am headed back to college for a Masters in music, and quite a bit of the software used for composition is more comfortable for me to use in OSX. The Boot Camp opportunity to dual-boot is the main reason I'm deciding to spend the money.

If Apple would open the Mac's physical architecture and allow for end-user assemblage, my desktop might even find itself replaced. There's just something cathartic about system design and modification, and the great feeling of knowing I can custom-build a machine to suit my needs that the desktop Macs don't offer.

Open the physical architeture???

Newsflash...The Mac is a PC. It simply follows the latest incarnation of the Intel Roadmap (look it up - that is an Intel phrase!)

All Apple is using that is different from the older generation PC is the Intel EFI BIOS becaue they don't have the legacy Window's baggage to carry around.

And EFI is simply the new 64 bit BIOS developed by Intel for the 64-bit Itanium. The irony is that the older Bios common on PCs is proprietary!!

Move on and give 'the Mac is a different hardware topology' a rest!

COME ON STEVE! Make them write games for apple, and i'll buy one too.

Nicely done on those numbers. I'd love to see Apple gain market share.

Choice = good for everyone.

I wonder if they came with viruses....

The ones that were packaged with the Video IPOD :)

Only for Windows. It makes the Windows folks feel more at home. ;-)

Enhanced choice is a very nice thing... Regardless of which environment is your primary choice.

But 'forget' Bootcamp ;-) when you can run the even more robust Parallel or VMWare and run the various environments concurrently.

Finally a choice where you can move seamlessly between the UNIX and Windows environments on one machine without having to pick one, while picking the environment that is best for your own personal productivity. (and no, Windows and Linux did not afford this functionality.)

Windows and Linux did not afford this functionality.
Perhaps because they cannot control Apple not allowing OSX to be run on non-Mac hardware? It is not a flaw in Windows or Linux that a Mac cannot run on their traditional machines, they can run on any machines. It is Apple that limits OSX to their own hardware. Apple OSes are the only ones I cannot run on my non-Mac hardware. Most versions of Windows, Linux distros, and BSD based OSes will run just fine on recent standard hardware...you can even run Solaris. You think OSX refusing to run on standard hardware is a shortcoming of Windows or Linux?

Yes and no.
After all, the Mac is simply an elegantly designed PC.

Let me ramble about a few features that makes the combination attractive, and I will try to address OSX not running on a standard PC in the process.

OSX offers full windows file compatibility as well as native UNIX compatibility. All you need do for UNIX machines is SSH (Secure shell - 'encrypted telnet') into the client and export your display and you 'are' the client. And you can open myriad session simultaneously into other servers (ie 10-15 easily).

With the Apple remote desktop management tool from Apple you can manage not only Macs byt Windows desktops giving you essentially Windows 2003 server functionality on the Mac for both platforms - and the capability to push images and perform remote desktop admin.

Thus with OSX you can seamlessly deal with both platforms - not to mention cutting and pasting between both environments.

With traditional UNIX and Windows you are forced to use terminal emulation such as Hummingbird Exceed - awkward as heck if you dare to open more than two sessions. The file formats are incomprehensible to each other and without the terminal emulation they don't talk well at all. Hence they are oil and water on the same machine.

With OSX you have a 'homogeneous' environment that talks to Unix machines natively and to Windows. A very elegant solution.

Oh, and OSX CAN and does run on all of the 'current' Intel chipsets since mid '05 - with no more tweaking required than one would do for Linux. Its just not supported by Apple. But OSX runs fine on regular PCs. Just beware that OSX takes advantage of native EFI - Intel's new generation bios developed for the 64bit Itanium while Windows natively requires a traditional proprietary BIOS. So you have to provide that for OSX. A minor issue. Support for EFI was killed in Vista, but I suspect you will see it relatively soon - but MS has focused on backwards compatibility - Apple did not need to. I wonder if MS didn't do this simply to hinder folks running OSX on most PCs - a rather shrewd strategic marketing move on their part. But this is a moot point now.

Oh, and to run on about OSX on the PC just a bit more. My initial wish would be for Apple to release OSX for the PC in an unsupported form. Just put it out there - say for a nominal $100. And I think they will. My guess is that within the next year or two, you will see Apple release OSX for generic PC (given the HW meets certain more recent configurations according to Intel's roadmap).

But I understand why they are not currently doing this from a strategic marketing point of view. Right now they are marketing a strategic advantage. Currently it is a smart strategic decision to make the Mac the only PC that can run both major OSes (plus the various UNIX variants). It is a defining difference for most people. And they as a company are smart to take advantage of a real value.

But after a period I think you will see OSX released - perhaps in an unsupported form, we'll see - for all PCs. It has the potential to be a Linux killer for the average person who wants an elegant alternative to Windows without dealing with a geeky Linux (that you would not dare give to you mom nor to the average person on the street). And not only can the average person configure and run OSX, but it has APPLICATIONS! Something the Linux desktop crowd is still confused about. (Sorry guys) ;-) Plus OSX can read all of their Windows files and the Mac can do anything Linux can do. I just wish Jobs would get off his elitist attitude and not only teach the average user about the Mac in simple functional terms that the average mom and pop stuck buying a PC for their kid at school would understand (it is not more expensive - and it is not incompatible - and it is a PC!), but also address the geek crowd and mention that under the GUI is a full blown command line UNIX interface to the most POSIX compliant version of UNIX available.

Oh, and by the way, Apple has submitted OSX for certification insuring that it can run ANY UNIX app (ie including 64bit Oracle, etc!) on the Mac. In other words, the complete library of enterprise UNIX apps will be available without there needing to be a Mac only version. This has the potential to have a MAJOR impact on enterprise adoption - something that is happening almost inspite of Apple and the nay sayers anyway. Check out InfoWorld for more info on this...

So OSX provides an elegant and functional bridge between the heretofore oil and water environments of UNIX and Windows. And for Many, this is Very useful functionality. Thus you get your Windows, if that is what works for you, along with the added functionality that OSX offers. And if you want to run other variants of Linux or BSD you can load them as we speak. Especially if you use Parallel or VMWare.

Its simply the best of both worlds with additional functionality that neither individually offer.
You want Windows. Enjoy. You want UNIX - be is OSX, Linux, BSD...Enjoy. You want to talk between the two seamlessly and also administer remote desktops... Enjoy. All on one unit.

You lose nothing. But you gain ALLOT of functionality! And I don't see how anyone can complain about that. Why sacrifice any functionality? But I am confident that some will complain about the Mac - despite its additional capabilties without any proprietary add-ons or tricks. And I don't care what you think of Jobs any more than I want to hear what someone thinks of Gate!

We have lots to be excited about.

"OSX offers full windows file compatibility"

Last time I checked, it couldn't write into NTFS drives. Only read.

That is all OSX needs to do! You are missing the point. OSX is not Windows. It is not trying to be. It doesn't need to be. You have Windows.
And Windows can not read other formats on other platforms at all. But you can run native Windows natively!
And within apps you can cut and paste from Windows into OSX, massage the data and cut and paste it back into the Windows app. This is an OLD feature...going back under virtual PC.

This is the first post I've seen by you where you weren't completely pissed off.

Well done.

You're still arrogant though... Gotta work on that.

Man, I was with you until you wrote "ALLOT."

If you want pissed off, just dance the usual emotional OS fanboys out who are more concerned with telling others they are stupid then with examining the pros and cons of a platform and of the market strategy. Who cares what they think someone else should be using instead of understanding and using what works best for them.

The fact is, any issue is generally a blend of pros and cons, and it would sure be a welcome change on this site if more people would coherently approach each issue as if there is something to be learned from a market strategy or a technical point of view - instead of from their emotional head up the posterior emotional fanboy rants.

The Mac currently offers some unique functionality that has real advantages to everyone in that you don't have to choose between what OS environment you will run. You can have it all. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, this will be expanded to allow non-Apple PCs to run OSX.

Jobs is still an elitist, and Apples's marketing reflects this - especially in the market segment occupied by the iPod...as if I care what Bono thinks. That's too bad. I think they would benefit from a true attempt to market the Mac as 'the computer for the rest of us' - a moniker that is too old for most of you to remember, while truely educating the avg consumer! But then again Job's determination has helped shape the OS as well - and I can think of good and bad aspects of that...

On the other hand Windows is a kludge. I am sorry if that offends some. But it is true. Oh, it does OK and it is the tail wagging the dog in the marketplace. And it does have games - a defining aspect for some. Maybe that will change. We will see. But in any event, we deal with it. But realistically, for an OS with so many man-hours poured into its development and with so many copies in use, it should be the most stable, functional and elegant OS on the planet, and it is none of the above - not even close.

So 'we pays our money and we takes our choice.' I for one simply believe we are better off with more quality choices at our disposal on one machine. At least then WE make the choice of what works best for our task instead of the platform making the choice for us. And for me, that's a good thing. And with luck, the increased competition will benefit us all.

but i can run linux off a jump drive, what more do i need:-D

yeah i do remember something about that from like 7.5.1 or so

"what more do i need?"

Try: a p p l i c a t i o n s... ;-)

"it should be the most stable, functional and elegant OS on the planet, and it is none of the above - not even close."
ppl can live with NT 2K & 2K3 and they are quite stable.
Now they have VISTA for folks like you who cannot live without eye candy, nothing wrong in that i too am falling in love with compiz errr beryl.
As far as functionality is concerned it is ahead in that area compared to OSX. (maxmize button)
And dude you are a FANBOY accept that, and dont say you are not, i admit i too am Opera fanboy but at least i admit it.

I live in AIX on the RS6000.

Let's see Windows do massively parallel processing and HACMP! Heck, Windows still doesn't have 64-bit drivers and we were fully functional with 64-bit in 1997! How many CPU's can Windows manage before it becomes totally confused? 1?

Check out the annual DHBrown enterprise OS reviews each year! Windows has consistently ranked last for over 10 years!

What's wrong, can't stand an opposing view to the MS is the most advance OS on the planet? It's not even close!

But I am happy that you are content with your 'BIG' game platform.

Some of expect more. And no, a new game is not sufficient!

I was thinking we lost you at "Yes".

"I live in AIX on the RS6000."

man are they paying you , if yes then i too would love to post such HUGE comments.

Where I work one guy brought in a MacBook Pro.
He was harassed for months.
Now we all have one... all 30 of us.

The irony is that scenario is precisely what happened with the Mac back in the 80's and 90's at Lawrence Berkeley Labs and in too many other places.

And with the strategic positioning of the Mac as the computer that can run 'both OSes' concurrently (plus all of the others), I think you will see that trend continue, as it provides a strategic reason for it to be adopted into a traditionally Windows environment - albeit one where IT often has had to try to deal with both the UNIX and Windows platform with less than ideal tools. Apple is currently offering a elegant product with enhanced capabilities. And that simply adds to each users potential functionality if they choose to take advantage of it.

Bootcamp is the main reason for the increase yet they will never admit it. People like the Apple hardware that runs windows.

Actually, it's the transition to Intel, not Bootcamp. There was a story on this a few days ago.

I think we're begging the question here. Moving to Intel definately made the coexistence of the various environments on what has become a commodity platform, possible.

But programs like BootCamp, and to a larger degree VMWare and Parallel have increased the value of the platform by allowing various envronments to run concurrently... Thus effectively increasing productivity, efficiency, back up and disaster recovery at the same time with reduced cost.

The problem is that only a few people are using Bootcamp/Parallels.

Macs are selling on their own merit, not because of Windows.

I tend to think that it is both...

Mac users are traditionally an amazingly loyal club.

But the reality is that most of the market has been Windows users. And as much as many of them would like to try the Mac, they are not about to buy an additional machine just to try it out. No surprises there!

But now with the option to have a single elegant machine that can run both environments natively, they can have their cake and eat it too.

And thats a pretty powerful and compelling option, compared to a platform limited to only one option...

And at least for the near term, it is a strategic advantage that Apple will leverage to their advantage. Hopefully it will be sufficiently successful that they will feel safe enough to release OSX for the PC as well, effectively extending the functionality to all who desire it.

"I tend to think that it is both..."

It's not. Market studies reveal that the use of Intel CPUs combined with a general dissatisfaction with Windows and a love of the iPod are fueling renewed interest in the Mac. Apple's selling those laptops like hotcakes.

Maybe in the less than 18 yo market segment.

But iPods are certainly not driving their adoption in the enterprise and adult market segments.

And the ability to run both systems is definately driving the adoption by many folks, both Windows and Mac users!

Like it or not, everyone is not running away from Windows, even if they would like to! Deal with it!

"But iPods are certainly not driving their adoption in the enterprise and adult market segments."

Enterprises aren't adopting the Mac. Adults, however, do buy iPods and do get frustrated with Windows' insecurity.

"And the ability to run both systems is definately driving the adoption by many folks, both Windows and Mac users!"

You've said this two or three times now. Time to cite a report or stop saying it.

"Like it or not, everyone is not running away from Windows, even if they would like to! Deal with it!"

Why exactly would I need to "deal with" some people using Windows on their Mac? I don't care what they use. You, apparently, do.

Idiot, you are the one saying no one wants a Mac for the ability to run multiple OSes.

You are wrong! I know PLENTY of folks. But they they aren't gamers, and they are not in high school or college - so you would probably be ignorant of them.

"Idiot, you are the one saying no one wants a Mac for the ability to run multiple OSes."

I'm the one saying that only a small amount of people are buying Macs for multi-booting. There are very few people who need access to more than one OS. Given that Apple is not heavily marketing Bootcamp, it stands to reason that few people know about it.

And now that you're slinging insults, it seems that you're out of debating ammunition. So here's a link for you:

http://ilounge.com/index...urgence-in-mac-platform/

They'll continue to set records if Vista's 2-device licensing holds. I personally don't know of anyone upgrading to Vista, but I've heard a lot of people say: "Time to try Linux again," and "Screw that, I'll use that crap they call Apple — at least Jobs is honest about screwing you!"

Yup, people say a lot of things. The question is how many are actually doing it.

The Vista license is really very bad, but no-one seems to mind the fact that if I want to buy OSX, I am forced to buy a machine with questionable reliability to go with it.

"I am forced to buy a machine with questionable reliability to go with it."

Questionable reliability? The only question here is your familiarity with the type and frequency of complaints about Apple's hardware configurations.

Hint: the hardware is fine.

Ignore them. They are still delusional thinking that Mac is not a PC!

Lets hope they don't accidently ship them with Viruses, like they ship their I-plops...

English translation ppl.

So your quippy comment indicates that you know so much about HFS+ and OSX. haha

Say what you want Fanboys... it doesnt change the fact that people are tired of Microsux and are moving into much greener pastures. But go ahead, flame macs and keep using Windows, makes no difference to anyone except you. Continue to lead a frustrating miserable life full of hate and resentment.

Good luck.

(please flame fanboys, so I may laugh at you jumping through hoops for nothing, LOL)

If people are "moving into much greener pastures", it's not MacOS, as you forget that MacOS market share is on the decline, and currently sits at a mere 3.7% (XP has over 85%).

Yep, the iPod is a total flop. That's why it's outlasted literally hundreds of competing products.

Apple is on the rise. I welcome the rebirth of true competition for Microsoft.

Yep, there is no denying IPod is sucessfull, but WHY?

It's got crap sound quality, even worse build quality and it's tied to a propitery file format and DRM (AAC). It excels in only 2 areas, ease of use/UI, and slick marketing.

The iPod's succeeded because it's a good product tied to an excellent software player/music store. It's that simple.

Regarding your detraction points: my iPod Nano has pretty good sound quality, good build quality, and it is not tied to AAC, given that you can load mp3s on an iPod in addition to buying mp3s from the iTunes Store.

DRM is not Apple's fault, and FairPlay is sufficiently flexible in what it allows you to do with your purchased music. The only people complaining that iTunes-purchased songs only work on iPods are iPod haters.

Every Ipod I have listened to sound pretty poor, a G3 Ipod, a 4G(?) 20GB video one, and a Nano.

Compared to a Creative Zen, or a Sony, they don't even come close on build or sound quality.

Whilst build quality can't actually be measured, so it's subjective, and Apple don't actually release specs on the SNR for the iPod, but it's been measured at 88dB. This is pretty average, when compared to the 98dB of the Zen and the latest Walkman NW-A series...

Anything over 84dB leads to hearing loss, so is this even relevant?

It's like saying a car can do 200 MPH when you'll never drive it over 70 MPH.

I believe he was talking about signal to noise ratio, not volume levels.

But you look REALLY cool with that Ipood on your ears!!

Apple makes pretty good hardware.. But then again we have only purchased IBM T series laptops so they are very good also.

the first macbook pros we got fried in 5 hours. and told us we had to send it in for there standard 7 days repair plan. but when you use a credit card you just give it back and wait for them to fix it!!

It's good they are making money.. It's good there is another machine for IT pros to support.. remember this all makes us money!!

To each his own, but is anyone fooling themselves into thinking the high compression formats are high fidelity? And I dont care about the various high rate encoding schemes - they are a rare exception.
To argue the pros and cons of these devices is akin to arguing over what version of the walkman cassette player is the highest fidelity.

Pay your money and take your choice.
The vast majority of people buy these things for convenience and image. NOT for high fidelity.

More people are moving to Linux; not Mac.

That's because Linux actually runs on their hardware. =p

Really?

Seems that the Mac marketshare is running at about 3.7%

http://marketshare.hitsl...com/report.aspx?qprid=2

which is pretty much where it has been for years.

Interestingly enough, Vista makes a strong showing, which is odd for an OS that hasn't actually been released yet.

Sorry, Mac market share is up to 6.1%.

There's a difference between "good" and "high quality." The iPod plays lossy music formats. It's kind of silly to expect super high-quality when the music itself is compressed.

Referring to Signal To Noise ration, not volume levels.

A low Signal To Noise ration means background noise. I listened to a G4 Video Iplop, and it was very hissy...

Dupe

Link?

http://www.gizmodo.com/g...now-at-371-201914.phpAh

http://www.theinquirer.n...ault.aspx?article=34491

http://macdailynews.com/...p/weblog/comments/11334/

Pretty sure that had more to do with the quality of the encoding than the sound quality of the iPod.

Thats only US. Globally it's 3.74%

It's also a mac site, so it's going to paint the best picture it can from the stats it digs up...

Of course it's US market share. That's the market usually referred to when talking about market share. Regardless, market share is up, not down.

The article cites the Gartner figures directly, and even links to them. It's a Mac site, yes, but it's a little silly to accuse it of bias when a) it cites primary sources, and b) you yourself linked to The Inquirer.

Heh, want a bet?

What a load of BS. Global marketshare is what's important. The US alone is only a fraction of the global market.

Take a look at a map someday...

People in the US discuss US marketshare. Whenever global marketshare is indicated, it is specifically mentioned. Welcome to the world of common usage of language.

Since you're throwing insults out, I presume it means you're out of actual debating ammunition, and as such are simply trying to throw up BS. Very telling.

Agh, Apple dumbs down the population.

LOL@ignorance

fool.

"Its UI is intuitive, IT'S FOR IDIOTS!"

I will never understand that train of thought. You're essentially arguing that computers should be harder to use.

After years of Windows copying the Mac GUI...
oh well...

Who ripped theirs of from Xerox...

Everything is a rip of something else. The issue is whether or not it's any good. Macs happen to be pretty good.

If everything is a rip of of something else, then nobody would have ever innovate, and we would be still rubbing sticks together to light fires...

Personally Macs happen to be pretty bad, I can't run any of the software I need on them, without using BootCamp, and XP, so I am better buying a PC for half the price, and twice the speed...

Then explain why MS tried to license the MacOS, failed, and then went on to develop Windows? Why aren't you folks still using command line - opps, sorry, I guess thats a sore subject...what commandline?.....so much for what is left of a now non-functional terminal session except to run chkdsk, ping and ipconfig as Windows losses connectivity with a network card.

If you want a fully functional commandline interface you need to move to one of the UNIX variants, be it OSX or Linux.

Oh, and you cant run any software - poor baby!...so you don't use Office or anything by Adobe or Macromedia. Plus MS is the largest developer for the Mac. But then I can see why you can't find anything of use. Here's news, but you'd best sit down; there is more to computers than just games.

Twice the speed huh? Cite your sources against the lastest MacBook Pros or Mac Pros. And I dare you to use figures for native software - and not rely on emulated software titles!
You just can't deal with the fact that Macs are simply PCs running the EFI bios can you?