Poor Wintel trolls, they must be gnashing their teeth impotently right now as Apple keeps on takin' marketshare from them. And where's Longhorn? Still a year and a half away, lol.

Go !

Mac fans can't think hard so they don't have headaches. Hit them on the head. Watch them smile!

This must _surely_ be an indication that Apple is doooooomed, that we're iLemmings and that we have to read some useless speculation to 'check the facts', and that we're all getting Dell machines in 2 years time, no ... ?

Go get a life, troll.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The apple computer company is doooooomed, we are we must ' inspection fact iLemmings, and we are completely obtain the young mountain valley machine in 2 ages...? Obtains the life, tows fishes

Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

For a moment there, I thought the spirit of our favourite Wintel drone had forsaken these lands ....

The obsolete hardware would be your Dell box when you realise how fast OSX will run on an Intel chip, and that you have to buy an Apple machine to run it ...

I guess another one of your predictions failed miserably ...

I never used to find clowns funny RC has changed all that

Spy

I think we are going to find that OS X does not run as fast as windows on intel chips.

that's my prediction. you heard it here first.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I think we are going to find that OS X does not run as fast as windows on intel chips.

that's my prediction. you heard it here first.

Ok by fast are you including all the downtime because of viruses and all the time Windows spends getting in your face? I mean, really if we are talking productivity time, that needs to be included. Besides, i think you are just wrong.

And if you are gonna make a 'heard it here first' prediction, how about using a name other than guest.

But...but...I thought RC said that Apple would never gain market share since all they do is sell overpriced, trendy, low-quality goods to iLemmings. How can their market share possibly go up? Can RC admit he's wrong?

Quote

Guest wrote:
I think we are going to find that OS X does not run as fast as windows on intel chips.

that's my prediction. you heard it here first.

Dude you have no clue what you are talking about. And I don't say this as someone who is a huge fan of Apple. I say this as someone who's daily job is working with the Windows kernel. If you knew anything about the architecture that Windows is built upon vs. the architecture of OS X, you'd realize what you said cannot be true. Well unless you were referring to Windows 98. Hehe just kidding.

Quote

Guest wrote:
But...but...I thought RC said that Apple would never gain market share since all they do is sell overpriced, trendy, low-quality goods to iLemmings. How can their market share possibly go up? Can RC admit he's wrong?

Yeah didn't RC have some bet going with Brian about market share and the halo effect?

Especially since you said that there was no "halo effect."

Which is it?

Quote

Guest wrote:
I think we are going to find that OS X does not run as fast as windows on intel chips.

that's my prediction. you heard it here first.

Actually, I've seen some reports that show OSX is very fast on the Intel machines. And those developer machines aren't cutting edge, unless you consider an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 for video cutting edge.

Well looks like it took a little longer than expected, but it seems Bryan has won "The Bet" that he had a while back. RC has harped on about this time and time again, hope your're ready to eat your plate of crow, RC!

Where are you getting this 1.2% increase? As you noted, it's a 33% increase. I'm assuming that you were trying to subtract the old market share (3.7%) from the new market share (4.5%), and had a brain-fart along the way.

For those who are still having a brain-fart right now, 4.5 minus 3.7 gives you 0.8, not 1.2.

Also, it is neither accurate nor wise to state this difference as a "1.2% increase". That's incorrect. A 'percentage increase' is supposed to be interpreted as 'hundredths of the previous level', which is not what you meant here. What you meant should be written as "an increase of 1.2 percentage points" or just "gained 1.2 points in market share" (or 0.8 points if you were actually clued).

Do it right next time ... don't give the PC dweebs fodder for their FUD.

The iPod had no measurable effect on Mac sales, only after the Mac mini did market share show a minor increase. The iPod halo effect is another Apple myth. Sure lower the price of a headless Mac from $2,000 to $500 and you'll see a temporary increase in sales as iLemmings replace their old burned-out iMacs. With Apple's quality problems and switch to Intel expect Mac market share to resume its decline.

Plan C from Steve Jobs is switching from OS X to Linux in 2007. Developers aren't going to bother with Mac versions when iLemmings own Apple PCs. Linux market share is already ahead of the Mac OS, and it's not an overpriced proprietary OS that costs $100+ a year just to keep current. With low priced Linux Intel boxes megalomaniacal Jobs will try to take on MS and Dell.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Sure lower the price of a headless Mac from $2,000 to $500 and you'll see a temporary increase in sales as iLemmings replace their old burned-out iMacs.

But...but if they're just replacing computers, wouldn't the market share stay the same instead of going up 30%?

I think some PC folks have wised up to the fact that OSX Tiger doesn't get spyware and viruses. They're fed up with it on the PC side and with Longhorn losing features every week and still a year and a half away. They finally looked at the Mac and tried it out in one of the Apple stores. Then relized that Apple has come a long way since they last used one. Which was probably 10 or 15 years ago. Anyways I think spyware is the number one reason and in second place would be viruses is why people are moving away from the PC and to the Mac.

RC spwed.....

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
The iPod had no measurable effect on Mac sales, only after the Mac mini did market share show a minor increase. The iPod halo effect is another Apple myth. Sure lower the price of a headless Mac from $2,000 to $500 and you'll see a temporary increase in sales as iLemmings replace their old burned-out iMacs. With Apple's quality problems and switch to Intel expect Mac market share to resume its decline.

Plan C from Steve Jobs is switching from OS X to Linux in 2007. Developers aren't going to bother with Mac versions when iLemmings own Apple PCs. Linux market share is already ahead of the Mac OS, and it's not an overpriced proprietary OS that costs $100+ a year just to keep current. With low priced Linux Intel boxes megalomaniacal Jobs will try to take on MS and Dell.

......geezuz you are in denial! Oh...read Forbes, Bloomberg, IDG etc and they will give you facts that the HALO IS MAKING WINBLOWS USERS SWITCH MORE THAN EVER!!

...its not even fun anymore to rub your stupid lil face in it....kinda like taking candy from a retarded, blind baby.

ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG...YOU LOST THE BET AHOLE!!!

be a man for once......I know it will be hard, but try it at least once you ignorant fool.

and I bet you dont have the balls to resond to me...typical pc weenie!

Quote

Small White Car wrote:
But...but if they're just replacing computers, wouldn't the market share stay the same instead of going up 30%?

Not to jump to RC's defense (not my intention at all!), but no. That would keep the installed base the same, but the market share (percentage of computers sold during a period of time) would increase, as it did.

The influence of the Mac mini and the so-called halo effect are both hard to measure, particularly because Apple does not publicly break out mini sales. So RC's claim that the gain in market share (which, by the way, is phenomenal, and hardly minor) is due to the mini rather than the halo effect is purely speculation. In truth, it's likely a combination of the two factors (along with others, such as the continued virus infestations of Windows PCs).

What's entertaining is RC's implicit admission that the Mac mini is a successful product.

Quote

jimothy wrote:

Quote

Small White Car wrote:
But...but if they're just replacing computers, wouldn't the market share stay the same instead of going up 30%?

Not to jump to RC's defense (not my intention at all!), but no. That would keep the installed base the same, but the market share (percentage of computers sold during a period of time) would increase, as it did.

Thanks for clearing that up. Makes sense.

An interesting opinion piece:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050714.html

The numbers were from Q2, wasn't that before the announcement? I would think there would be a slow down for portable machines the closer we get to the new year. People waiting to see what the new mactel laptops look like. Right now I'm waiting for the new dual processor chip IBM just announced in a desktop.

rc sure is getting pretty lame at bring a troll, maybe we need to find someone else who can troll more effectively....i cringly......john c dvorak?

So basically RC is saying that there is a halo effect from the Mac Mini?

There is a halo effect for a new computer created by...

wait for it.....

that very computer? How does something create its own halo effect?

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
The iPod had no measurable effect on Mac sales, only after the Mac mini did market share show a minor increase. The iPod halo effect is another Apple myth. Sure lower the price of a headless Mac from $2,000 to $500 and you'll see a temporary increase in sales as iLemmings replace their old burned-out iMacs. With Apple's quality problems and switch to Intel expect Mac market share to resume its decline.

Plan C from Steve Jobs is switching from OS X to Linux in 2007. Developers aren't going to bother with Mac versions when iLemmings own Apple PCs. Linux market share is already ahead of the Mac OS, and it's not an overpriced proprietary OS that costs $100+ a year just to keep current. With low priced Linux Intel boxes megalomaniacal Jobs will try to take on MS and Dell.

RC, your rants are so pathetic. why can't you be a good loser and just admit Apple is making some inroads again in the industry and all of your doom and gloom predictions went out the window with the Eagles winning the superbowl. Where is the stock plunge you predicted when Apple switched to intel? Noticed that one never happened.

Like or not for you buddy Apple is still on a role.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Well looks like it took a little longer than expected, but it seems Bryan has won "The Bet" that he had a while back. RC has harped on about this time and time again, hope your're ready to eat your plate of crow, RC!

I fear I lost The Bet, and certainly all my reasoning at the time was wrong, wrong, wrong. Apple is gaining share today, but under a completely new set of circumstances.

I should have written up my losing letter a year and half ago.

Thanks for the support, though, Guest. Just glad to see Apple finally bring it together. This jump in share we are seeing is a very big thing for the Mac platform.

I'm serious about OS X running slower than windows. (pre-spyware/adware/virus/spyware blocking tool/adware blocking tool/anti-virus).

I believe that OS X will run better on intel than PowerPC.

Read through anandtech's article on osx vs linux vs windows.

Microkernels are slow.

Poor RC, as time passes he gets worse and worse...do ya need your tranquilizers again, poor man? Winblows is through, as well as beleaguered HP...

RC, worry not, you may still find an intern vacation at Apple's Creativity Department...huahuahua

I'm in the market for a new computer, but don't won't to put a lot of money into Mac's until I know what these MacTel machines are gonna offer... any word on when the first machines are going to be availabe? Seems like I remeber Apple usually announces new machines & upgrades in September & November.

I was considering getting one of those $300 Dell's to hold me over until the new Mac's come out... any word?

Also, a questions for some of the more tech savy peeps on here... any word about wether the less expensive (i.e. cheaper) PC peripherals will work with MacTels or is that a more OS/Driver specific issue?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I'm in the market for a new computer, but don't won't to put a lot of money into Mac's until I know what these MacTel machines are gonna offer... any word on when the first machines are going to be availabe?

The best guess is that G4 machines (iBooks, Powerbooks, Mac Minis) will see Intel versions around June 2006.

Don't expect teh G5 products (Powermac, iMac) to get Intel versions until early 2007. So if you're looking at an iMac, go ahead and get one now. It will most likely be a year and a half before you can get an Intel-iMac.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Also, a questions for some of the more tech savy peeps on here... any word about wether the less expensive (i.e. cheaper) PC peripherals will work with MacTels or is that a more OS/Driver specific issue?

What kind of peripherals are you talking about? Mice? Printers? Monitors? USB drives? Pretty much everything works with current G4 and G5 Macs, so I don't see why that would change once they switch to Intel.

I think I'm going to vomit next time somebody say's that Mac sales will decrease due to the Intel switch anouncement.

ALL personal computers become obsolete within 2-3 years, regardless of what OS they are running. Why not buy a Mac now, there would have been something far better on the market to replace it when it would have become obsolete in 2-3 years anyway.

Buy a Mac now, don't wait. You'll get just as much life out of it as you would have if the Intel switch hnever happened.

and BTW RC, saying that it costs over $100 a year o upkeep the OS is total BS. I'm still using the original version of OSX with the free updates dowloaded to it. How many years ago was that? Even considering what you say, would you really choose Windows over OS X? Windows cost 3x per install as Mac OS does, and at least Apple DOES update their OS. When did XP come out?, When is Longhorn due? How can you take a company seriosuly when it doesn't even bother to introduce new cutting edge features more than every 6 years.

Quote

Syntax_Error wrote:
I'm still using the original version of OSX with the free updates dowloaded to it.

Whoah. That's great that you've saved money, but you can buy Panther now for about $50 and you can probably find Jaguar online somewhere for next to nothing.

I'd suggest doing at least one of those. OS X improved a LOT over that time. I'd say those updates were easily worth $129 each so the fact that you can get them for under $50 now means they're a great deal.

I definately agree with you on that matter. I do see the benefit in every OS that Apple has released, however I was making a point that even the original OS X is a capable OS to run all of my applications and did not require me to anually output money to keep it going.
Later in my post I stated that Apple DOES upgrade their OS with new cutting edge technologies. which do make it useful to upgrade, and even at that it is far more cost effective to run than Windows is. On top of that I get the education discount on Apple software which puts the OS at something like $60-$70 for the full retail version. You just can't beat that.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Syntax_Error wrote:
I'm still using the original version of OSX with the free updates dowloaded to it.

Whoah. That's great that you've saved money, but you can buy Panther now for about $50 and you can probably find Jaguar online somewhere for next to nothing.

I'd suggest doing at least one of those. OS X improved a LOT over that time. I'd say those updates were easily worth $129 each so the fact that you can get them for under $50 now means they're a great deal.

Quote

Syntax_Error wrote:
I definately agree with you on that matter. I do see the benefit in every OS that Apple has released, however I was making a point that even the original OS X is a capable OS to run all of my applications and did not require me to anually output money to keep it going.

Oh yes, I don't mean to step on your point. I agree. I had just shifted into 'helpful-advice' mode and couldn't help it.

The figures have absolutely NOTHING to do with "market share." They are sales share.

If ten people buy Macs and ten buy Windows PCs, Apple would have 50% of the market and 50% of sales. Now, seven people get rid of their Windows boxes. They and five more people buy Windows machines while only ten people buy Macs. That means the Mac sale percentage has gone down (they only sold ten but 12 Windows machines were sold. However, there are now 20 Mac users and only 17 Windows users.

It's NOT market share. It's SALES share.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The figures have absolutely NOTHING to do with "market share." They are sales share.

If ten people buy Macs and ten buy Windows PCs, Apple would have 50% of the market and 50% of sales. Now, seven people get rid of their Windows boxes. They and five more people buy Windows machines while only ten people buy Macs. That means the Mac sale percentage has gone down (they only sold ten but 12 Windows machines were sold. However, there are now 20 Mac users and only 17 Windows users.

It's NOT market share. It's SALES share.

Until the rest of the world adapts to your terminology, what you call "sales share" is what everybody else calls "market share." And what you call "market share" is what is known as "installed base." I know, it's unfair, but since your terms have only a 0.00000014% mind share, you might want to just throw in the towel and adopt the generally accepted terms.

I don't care who you are, THAT's funny!

Quote

jimothy wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
The figures have absolutely NOTHING to do with "market share." They are sales share.

If ten people buy Macs and ten buy Windows PCs, Apple would have 50% of the market and 50% of sales. Now, seven people get rid of their Windows boxes. They and five more people buy Windows machines while only ten people buy Macs. That means the Mac sale percentage has gone down (they only sold ten but 12 Windows machines were sold. However, there are now 20 Mac users and only 17 Windows users.

It's NOT market share. It's SALES share.

Until the rest of the world adapts to your terminology, what you call "sales share" is what everybody else calls "market share." And what you call "market share" is what is known as "installed base." I know, it's unfair, but since your terms have only a 0.00000014% mind share, you might want to just throw in the towel and adopt the generally accepted terms.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm serious about OS X running slower than windows. (pre-spyware/adware/virus/spyware blocking tool/adware blocking tool/anti-virus).

I believe that OS X will run better on intel than PowerPC.

Read through anandtech's article on osx vs linux vs windows.

Microkernels are slow.

Uh-oh! He read an article! Now's he's a kernel expert! So you read an article and now YOU have made this prediction? That's pretty pathetic. So you take someone else's research, come here, and claim it as your own "prediction".

But you know what's even funnier than that? You fire off about how microkernel is slower. But the article you cite specifically states the following:

"Now, while Mac OS X is based on Mach 3, it is still a monolithic OS."

So that just further proves my point. You have no clue what you are talking about. Oh and on top of that, I wonder if operating systems consist of other things besides just a kernel. Hmm... I wonder if those other things have an impact on the overall performance of the system when it is running. Hmmm...

Better luck next time, dumb ass.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

What 1.2% increase? That's a 22% increase. Do a little math, dumbass.

Quote

jhonka wrote:

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

What 1.2% increase? That's a 22% increase. Do a little math, dumbass.

And Apple's market share is still tiny. The "22% increase" makes almost no difference.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

jhonka wrote:

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

What 1.2% increase? That's a 22% increase. Do a little math, dumbass.

And Apple's market share is still tiny. The "22% increase" makes almost no difference.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

jhonka wrote:

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

What 1.2% increase? That's a 22% increase. Do a little math, dumbass.

And Apple's market share is still tiny. The "22% increase" makes almost no difference.

But thats a 22% increase in just ONE year. That's quite impressive, actually. If Apple keeps increasing at that compounded rate, within a few short years they will be far from tiny (not that that word accurately describes a $10 billion a year company, which Apple now is).

And you can bet that Microsoft isn't happy at all about Apple taking ANY marketshare from them, which they are now doing. Especially since there's almost nothing they can do about it, until Longhorn comes out. Even then though, OS X 10.5 comes out at around the same time, so MS would remain behind, even if they copied Tiger to the max (which one would expect).

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

jhonka wrote:

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

What 1.2% increase? That's a 22% increase. Do a little math, dumbass.

And Apple's market share is still tiny. The "22% increase" makes almost no difference.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

jhonka wrote:

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wow get all excited about a 1.2% increase, that's all the iPod halo and mac mini could do. Obviously a big disappoint for Apple, that's why they threw in the towel and announced they would switch to making Intel PCs next year. iLemmings are now stuck with obsolete hardware that they can put next to their old Betamax and Amiga. Watch Apple drop support for the old platform like a hot potato to force iLemmings to buy Apple PCs.

What 1.2% increase? That's a 22% increase. Do a little math, dumbass.

And Apple's market share is still tiny. The "22% increase" makes almost no difference.

But thats a 22% increase in just ONE year. That's quite impressive, actually. If Apple keeps increasing at that compounded rate, within a few short years they will be far from tiny (not that that word accurately describes a $10 billion a year company, which Apple now is).

And you can bet that Microsoft isn't happy at all about Apple taking ANY marketshare from them, which they are now doing. Especially since there's almost nothing they can do about it, until Longhorn comes out. Even then though, OS X 10.5 comes out at around the same time, so MS would remain behind, even if they copied Tiger to the max (which one would expect).

Quote

Guest wrote:

But thats a 22% increase in just ONE year. That's quite impressive, actually. If Apple keeps increasing at that compounded rate, within a few short years they will be far from tiny (not that that word accurately describes a $10 billion a year company, which Apple now is).

And you can bet that Microsoft isn't happy at all about Apple taking ANY marketshare from them, which they are now doing. Especially since there's almost nothing they can do about it, until Longhorn comes out. Even then though, OS X 10.5 comes out at around the same time, so MS would remain behind, even f they copied Tiger to the max (which one would expect).

I don't think Microsoft is concerned. The Apple "invasion" is not noticeable. I liken it to a few ants moving into my house. I hardly see them, and I can crush them at any time.

Troll-guests are coming to help RC, watch out!!

Microsoft has NOTHING to offer nowadays, and they are just going down the drain; the music battle has been won by Apple a LONG time ago, and Gates is just watching with his shitload of money in the bank.

Secondly, the video wars are starting, and Apple seems to be taking the lead once more.

And finally, Macs are being sold at 3 times the rate of crappy PCs...this means less Windows sold all over the place.

Get a grip, RC clone!

Apple hasn't taken the lead with their non-existent video iPods. Steve Jobs is keeping his money in the bank for when Mac sales plummet thanks to another platform change.

"And finally, Macs are being sold at 3 times the rate of crappy PCs...this means less Windows sold all over the place."
That's right. Macs are being sold at 3 times the price of PCs.

Quote

Biff wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm serious about OS X running slower than windows. (pre-spyware/adware/virus/spyware blocking tool/adware blocking tool/anti-virus).

I believe that OS X will run better on intel than PowerPC.

Read through anandtech's article on osx vs linux vs windows.

Microkernels are slow.

Uh-oh! He read an article! Now's he's a kernel expert! So you read an article and now YOU have made this prediction? That's pretty pathetic. So you take someone else's research, come here, and claim it as your own "prediction".

But you know what's even funnier than that? You fire off about how microkernel is slower. But the article you cite specifically states the following:

"Now, while Mac OS X is based on Mach 3, it is still a monolithic OS."

So that just further proves my point. You have no clue what you are talking about. Oh and on top of that, I wonder if operating systems consist of other things besides just a kernel. Hmm... I wonder if those other things have an impact on the overall performance of the system when it is running. Hmmm...

Better luck next time, dumb ass.

hey, don't get angry.

So you are saying that having a dual 2.7ghz G5 is what makes OS X 2-10 times slower?