PC or Mac?

KoS wrote: PC as I hate the Mac UI.

This..

Can you even run civilization on the Iphone computer ?

tamijo wrote: . . . the Iphone computer . . .

 The part of the iPhone that is actually a phone cost around 20¢ and could fit in a teaspoon - the rest of it is a handheld computer based on 32-bit RISC processor using the ARM architecture and is the the same processor that is used in the iPad. So, yeah, the iPhone computer.

JLocke wrote: Dean wrote:  The part of the iPhone that is actually a phone cost around 20¢ and could fit in a teaspoon - the rest of it is a handheld computer based on 32-bit RISC processor using the ARM architecture and is the the same processor that is used in the iPad. So, yeah, the iPhone computer.     Then, the iPad is just a giant comedic iPhone... I thought he was calling Macs 'iPhone computers', which would be a gross oversimplification. Apple made home computers a reality long before Microsnooze streamlined the concept and made them more affordable/accessible, so talking about Macs as if they are derivatives of the iPhone is just incorrect.  And don't get me started on the iPad.

Hmm, the Apple 1 was a small success, but no one would call it a home computer - it was a hobbyists tinker toy, the Apple 2 was slightly more successful and found its way into offices (but couldn't really compete with the Commadore Pet or the established S100 based business computers), but mainly because it was illegally cloned, again as a hobbyists plaything. Of all the home computers that were around then, Apple were running down the list, behind Commodore, Atari, Tandy/Radio Shack/Sharp and TI (Brands vary between USA and Europe - in the UK Sinclair, Amstrad and Acorn dominated the 8-bit market). When things went 16-bit, Apple were nowhere to be seen with Ataris and Amigas ruling the home market. The original Macintosh never was a home computer - it was too expensive and only really aimed at desk-top publishing (hence it's popularity with authors and graphics designers), it was designed to be a business machine. The PC was also designed as a business machine, but was cheaper, clone-able, expandable and really popular with ordinary office people, and their managers, and their accountants. The PC moved into the home because people wanted to use the same computer at home that they were using at work. Apple took years to recover from that - it was only when the iMac came out that they began to sell to home users - and IMO it was only it's looks that won the market share - it was a high-priced chique luxury ornament status symbol.

Dean wrote: JLocke wrote: Dean wrote:  The part of the iPhone that is actually a phone cost around 20¢ and could fit in a teaspoon - the rest of it is a handheld computer based on 32-bit RISC processor using the ARM architecture and is the the same processor that is used in the iPad. So, yeah, the iPhone computer.     Then, the iPad is just a giant comedic iPhone... I thought he was calling Macs 'iPhone computers', which would be a gross oversimplification. Apple made home computers a reality long before Microsnooze streamlined the concept and made them more affordable/accessible, so talking about Macs as if they are derivatives of the iPhone is just incorrect.  And don't get me started on the iPad. Hmm, the Apple 1 was a small success, but no one would call it a home computer - it was a hobbyists tinker toy, the Apple 2 was slightly more successful and found its way into offices (but couldn't really compete with the Commadore Pet or the established S100 based business computers), but mainly because it was illegally cloned, again as a hobbyists plaything. Of all the home computers that were around then, Apple were running down the list, behind Commodore, Atari, Tandy/Radio Shack/Sharp and TI (Brands vary between USA and Europe - in the UK Sinclair, Amstrad and Acorn dominated the 8-bit market). When things went 16-bit, Apple were nowhere to be seen with Ataris and Amigas ruling the home market. The original Macintosh never was a home computer - it was too expensive and only really aimed at desk-top publishing (hence it's popularity with authors and graphics designers), it was designed to be a business machine. The PC was also designed as a business machine, but was cheaper, clone-able, expandable and really popular with ordinary office people, and their managers, and their accountants. The PC moved into the home because people wanted to use the same computer at home that they were using at work. Apple took years to recover from that - it was only when the iMac came out that they began to sell to home users - and IMO it was only it's looks that won the market share - it was a high-priced chique luxury ornament status symbol.

Edited by JLocke - August 04 2010 at 22:59

I have used windows all my life. I've always hated it but never really decided to change. I finally did to a mac. I love it. So much better (for my needs) in all regards. Am I also doing it just for status?

The T wrote: I have used windows all my life. I've always hated it but never really decided to change. I finally did to a mac. I love it. So much better (for my needs) in all regards. Am I also doing it just for status?

My comment was in the past-tense (hence the use of "was" not "is") and aimed at the iMac "when it came out" - implying the original iMac G3. [my posts are long enough as it is, having to spell-out implied inferences is going to make them even longer ).

I love my ancient iBook G4, but I'm a "light user" so I don't really count  

^ How creative is that