Quick Sign In:  

Forum: General Discussion

Topic: LOOK OUT! MICROSFT IS CHECKING YOUR XP COPY - Page: 2

This part of topic is old and might contain outdated or incorrect information

The price isn't bad, XP's been available for five years now. The OS only works out at pennies an hour if you're a frequent computer user. It's less than VDJ.

£54.60 for XP Home
£83.85 for Virtual DJ - before swreg sting you with tax
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 1:30 pm
bagpussPRO InfinityMember since 2003
Microsoft Windows XP Pro (SP2): £195.00 excl VAT
(Charges for New Versions passed off with a different name)
Virtual DJ Pro: £83.85 excel VAT
(Which has also given upgrades from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and soon 3 to 4..for FREE)

VDJ Home edition is also cheaper than Microsofts home edition,
but the interesting point is that everyone who owns a PC is soposed to pay a simular price to Microsoft?, feels like unfair trade when you consider how vast the business is.
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 1:50 pm
You can buy an OEM version for cheaper (cheaper than Virtual DJ costs - XP Home isn't restricted in the same way Virtual DJ is, no comparison) and noone is forcing you to upgrade to a new version, yet. But five years and probably support for another two isn't really something people should complain about.

How many years had MS supported Windows 2000 even after XP was released, XP won't be dead when Vista is released. A lot of software designed with XP in mind is compatible with 2000, why should Vista be any different (excl. DX10 games).

I don't think it's fair to compare Virtual DJ giving upgrades for v1-v4 compared to a new OS, the costs don't compare. Microsoft had also released 4 Service Packs for 2000, regular security updates and so far XP has had 2 Service Packs and updates, also for free. Probably much more development time (therefore cost) associated to that than Virtual DJ. And not everyone that owns a PC had to pay that cost to Microsoft, you can run other Operating Systems, legally free ones too.
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 2:02 pm
bagpussPRO InfinityMember since 2003
Andrew, I was playing your game mate, as it was you who decided to take on the "unfair" comparison between VDJ and Windows pricing polices. But I still believe an operating system such as windows should be cheaper, considering how little they'd need from each household that owns a PC (worldwide), to remain the richest corporation ever.
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 2:11 pm
olivierbergman wrote :
Hi,

Do you speak about old version or cracked version of Windows XP ? or sp1?

learn to use XP or a computer !!!

lol !

I'm happy with Windows Xp SP2.

I don't use a Antivirus. I use just the Xp2 integrated firewall and a antispyware.

I've never had a virus because i don't use a software for my mail. I read my mail on the webpage.

I don't use cracked software or edonkey !!!

I've both a Mac and a PC.

I still prefer Windows Xp and software available for XP.

My PC works better than the MAC.

Vista need more memory, but I've checked as a betatester the Beta2 windows Vista 5384, and it work great and Virtual DJ and others audio applications use less CPU under vista ( the gain is 30/40% of CPU)

Windows Vista is a mac killer.

They are some comparaison in http://www.osx86project.org/ between Windows Xp and mac OSX with the same hardware.

When mac used PowerPC, i'm sure you are a kind of people that say that powerPC is superior to Intel processor. That G5 is faster !!!!. Now Apple go for Intel, and software have to be rewritten or recompiled.

Next steps to apple, to switch to Windows. (Mac users need to have a dual boot on their mac intel)

lol

Regards,

Olivier


"I am not responsible for other people's lack of foresight, much less their ignorance." - Me

I had written a really long response to this post, but my session timed out and I didn't copy the post before logging back in. Basically I debunked EVERY propogandist point you tried to make with fact and links to corraborating articles.

If i have time later, I'll prove your entire post wrong publicly by re-writng my comments.

For now, I'll just address your least intelligent comment [and it was hard for me to pick] which is the last one where you imply that Apple is going to dump Mac OS for windows.

In a nutshell... AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA.

If Apple were trying to "make nice" with microsoft and the windows community in order to smooth it's transiton into the windows world, they wouldn't be publicly humiliating them like they are.

From the Boot Camp website: http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

__________________________________________________________________________________

EFI and BIOS

Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Word to the Wise

Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Also, check out the new ads from Apple ridiculing everyday windows issues:

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

It's like Apple is Ashton Kutcher and microsoft, windows, microsoft apologists and windows lemmings all just... "GOT PUNKED!"
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 6:23 pm
funny how every registered user are mad at those who use VDJ cracked... but still find it ok to use Windows cracked ;) hehe

Use legal windows, no problems, easy updates.. all is fine :)

You should at LEAST buy the OS, and have that software legally! hehe
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 7:24 pm
bagpussPRO InfinityMember since 2003
Well Personally I'm legally allowed to use Windows XP Home on my laptop because it was installed legally on the laptop when I bought it, the laptop even has the certification on it, but when Windows became buggy I had no choice but to re-install from a non legit CD. Being honest and all.
 
Posted Sun 04 Jun 06 @ 7:36 pm
Bagpuss wrote :
Well Personally I'm legally allowed to use Windows XP Home on my laptop because it was installed legally on the laptop when I bought it, the laptop even has the certification on it, but when Windows became buggy I had no choice but to re-install from a non legit CD. Being honest and all.


Thank you for being honest about the fact that windows becomes buggy. Some diluted people * cough * olivierbergman * cough * on these forums are convineced that windows does not have these problems.

Although a few may not, millions more do. That's why the "switcher" movement that started 4 years ago is now in full swing.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 2:21 am
lol... funny movies;) hehe

I work as a graphic designer, and have both mac and pc...

Yes, mac as an advantage over Windows, as mac's are made by same company as makes the OS, so the hardware is stricktly choosen ,... where as pc's can have all kinds of hardware, causing Windows to have issues..

But I can say this... on my hardware , both the Mac and the PC runs equally good...
Having a good made PC makes it run fine.. :)
But the pc world is a caos of hardware and settings, so its not easy....


 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 2:32 am
Bagpuss wrote :
Well Personally I'm legally allowed to use Windows XP Home on my laptop because it was installed legally on the laptop when I bought it, the laptop even has the certification on it, but when Windows became buggy I had no choice but to re-install from a non legit CD. Being honest and all.


Thank you for being honest about the fact that windows becomes buggy. Some diluted people * cough * olivierbergman * cough * on these forums are convinced that windows does not have these problems, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Although a few may not have these problems, millions more do. That's why the "switcher" movement that started 4 years ago is now in full swing.

- 4 years ago it took an average of 2-3 visits, and a lot of detailed questions, for a switcher to decide to switch from a windows box to a Mac.

- 2 years ago the number of visits by those switchers was cut down to 1-2, but they still had quite a few detailed questions.

- 1 year ago [with the release of 10.4 Tiger in April '05] switchers became comfortable switching on their first visit and asking a minimal amount of basic questions.

- Within the past 2 months [since the release of Boot Camp] switchers are now coming in already knowing that they're gonna by a Mac and just ask for them. They're happy knowing that IF they need to run windows they can, but most of them HOPE that they won't have to, and MOST of them DON'T.

This just keeps getting easier and the amount of switchers switching from windows to Mac just keeps growing exponentially.

Thank you Apple for putting out such a great OS, but more importantly, thank YOU microsoft for making such a hunk of junk OS that people are dying to ditch it at the first opportunity!
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 2:41 am
dj-in-norway wrote :
Yes, mac as an advantage over Windows, as mac's are made by same company as makes the OS, so the hardware is stricktly choosen ,... where as pc's can have all kinds of hardware, causing Windows to have issues.


Which is all that I'm saying. The 2 most important parts of ANY computer are the hardware an it's OS. Apple is the ONLY company that maintains quality control over both of these components, and the result of this higher level of quality control is reliability, which equates to productivity, which in turn results in end user satisafction and ultimately customer loyalty.

THAT'S why Mac users don't switch to windows [using both is a different issue and entirely understandable], and THAT'S why windows users are switching to Macs enmasse.

dj-in-norway wrote :
But I can say this... on my hardware , both the Mac and the PC runs equally good...
Having a good made PC makes it run fine.. :)


How is it that you have a "[well] made PC"? Is your pc well made because you maintain it yourself and know what you're doing? As I've said before, if the end user knows what they're doing and can maintain and/or recover from a windows problem that's fine. But most end users don't have that level of knowledge. Nor should they be required to.

Most end-users just want a computer to work reliably and securely for an extended period of time, and they couldn't care less about how that is achieved by the manufacturer, they only care that THEY aren't going to have to be the one's to achieve that requirement.

That "want" of theirs is achieved through a higher level of quality control and SEAMLESS INTEGRATION between an OS and it's hardware. ONLY Apple provides that level of quality control.

dj-in-norway wrote :
But the pc world is a caos of hardware and settings, so its not easy....


Exactly. Which is why windows users are switching to Mac by the thousands weekly. The proof is in the VERY noticeable increase of Mac sales through major resellers like CompUSA [US] /FutureShop [Canada], and many others, but especially in the Apple Stores that have been opening up [internationally] for the past 5 years and continue to open quicker than we can count, due to customer demand. http://www.apple.com/retail/

Approximately 170+ of those stores will have opened by the end of this year, and do you know what's fueling the demand for those stores to open up?

SWITCHERS.

Well, looks like we can add Best Buy [North America's largest consumer electronics retailer] to the list of "I want to sell Macs too" jump on the bandwagoners: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060531211540.shtml

Oh, and now it looks like Italy will be on our list of international expansion as well: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1784

The takeover has begun.

Also, there MUST be a reason that Numark requires a Mac version of Virtual Vinyl. I wonder what that reason could be? I'm thinking that they are VERY aware of the huge amount of dj's here in the US that are going digital, and in doing so, know that Macs are the only solution that won't cause them an embarassing system crash during a live performance while on-air or in front of hundreds or thousand of people.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 3:14 am
LOL back with the Windows bashing. If Apple really wanted a bigger market share they'd let OS X natively run on PCs. Did you know that OS X Tiger was running on PCs months before Boot Camp was released? In both cases, third parties (i.e. not Microsoft nor Apple) were first to get the competing OS' installed on either system.

It's even rumoured that OS X worked better on a PC, this is before Apple switched to Intel.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 10:32 am
I just like the fact that Mac users and steve jobs used to say Power PC was bmore powerfull than x86 and if ou run OSx on a prescott p4 it our performs a g5 (singlecore) in non multithreaded apps. whats also pretty funny is how mac users think they are safe, and their is less venrrbilities in OS, which is wrong, OSX a test was done http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8727/
additionaly MacUsers seem to think they are imune from spyware and other attacks, when in reality it more likely a mac users computer will be exploited than your typical windows user due to their ignorance.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 12:05 pm
sbangsPRO InfinityMember since 2004
How delightful.

im sure it will be just as easy to remove as the time bomb features on 2003 server

cough.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 1:27 pm
Andrew87 wrote :
LOL back with the Windows bashing. If Apple really wanted a bigger market share they\'d let OS X natively run on PCs


Yup. If marketshare were more important to us than quality control which results in Macs working reliably and securely for 2 -3x longer than windows boxes, we certainly would. Unfortunately, we don\'t care about marketshare. Only amateur computer users who tend to be microsoft apologists and windows lemmings get caught up with that spoon fed propoganda.

\"Installed base\" on the other hand, IS important to us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installed_base

Slashdot - Mac Install-Base Shown to Be 16%
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/05/0548225.shtml?tid=3

\"MacDailyNews has an editorial which summarizes reports from various research groups that analyzed the number of computer users affected by viruses. The conclusion was that 16 percent of all computer users are not affected by viruses because they use Macs. The lack of viruses on a Mac is commonly known, but the interesting thing is the fact that the results finally provide the first set of conclusive numbers which illustrate the Macintosh\'s install-base. So far only \"market-share\" statistics are commonly published for the public and do not convey install base. (If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)\"

FACT: Mac users keep their computers for [minimally] 4 to [average] 6+ years as opposed to the typical 2 years that a windows box lasts. That\'s 2 - 3x longer, and Macs work reliably the entire time because of the superior level of quality control between the OS and it\'s hardware that ONLY Apple\'s Macintosh computers provide.

Hey, don\'t get mad at me, I\'m just relaying what my own 2 - 4 windows to Mac switchers confirm with me daily, 5 days a week and gave done so for the past 4 years. They\'re fed up, as they should be, and they\'re all RAPIDLY catching on to the fact that the problem with windows computers [aside from the lack of quality control between the OS and it\'s hardware,] is the lack of a quality OS. That\'s right, what is becoming common knowledge is that \"the problem with windows computers, is actually windows itself\". Now armed with the knowledge that the OS is the problem [not so much the hardware as many of them have now had the opportunity to go through 3-4 windows computers from different manufacturers within the past 10 years only to have the same problems on each one, which is why they are now realizing that windows was the problem all along], they look for alternative OS\'s.

Them - \"So what options do I have? Linux?\"
Me - \"Better than windows [ANYTHING is], but \"which distro are you gonna use\" and \"who are you gonna contact for support?\"
Them - \"Oh, but even if I do use Linux [insert distro here], what about that quality control thing? Am I gonna have the same driver and software/hardware incompatability issues because of the lack of quality control between the OS and it\'s hardware?\"
Me - \"You betcha.\"

Welcome another SWITCHER,

Multiply that scenario by 2 or 4 a day, then multiply that by 5 times a week, 4 weeks a month, and well, you get the picture.

Then multiply MY total you just came up with by my co-workers who are experiencing the similar numbers, then multiply that by the nearly 300 CompUSA stores in the US, and currently 150+ Apple Stores [170+ by the end of this year] all being fueles by SWITCHER demand.

Do yourself a favor and Google \"Apple Store Grand Openings\" and see what ALL the stores grand openings have looked like over the past 4 years, not just the flagship stores like the one in Manhattan a couple of weeks ago. NO windows box manufacturer comes REMOTELY close to that kind of enthusiasm and loyalty from not only existing users, but more importantly, users who are eagerly waiting to jump the admittedly huge, but unfortunately full of holes [security and otherwise], windows ship.

But who cares right? Go ahead and keep thinking that Macs are going to go away, and that there isn\'t a massive switcher movement that began back in 2002 and easily continues to gain more momentum exponentially each year. As a matter of fact, PLEASE keep believing that Apple\'s Mac marketshare is under 5%.

After all, a key element to winning a war is the element of surprise.


Andrew87 wrote :
Did you know that OS X Tiger was running on PCs months before Boot Camp was released?


The x86 project? We really don\'t care about a hacked version of Mac OS X running on non-Apple hardware. If it looks like a hack, and installd like a hack, then it\'s a hack.

Still doesn\'t compare to the genuine \"Mac Experience\".

Andrew87 wrote :
In both cases, third parties (i.e. not Microsoft nor Apple) were first to get the competing OS\' installed on either system.


Oh, now you\'re talking about win xp hacked on Intel Mac\'s. That was the OnMac.net contest. The only real issues that had yet to be resolved we\'re;
1] ATI graphics drivers on all Intel Mac models [which is why they were holding a contest to resolve that issue, until Apple dropped the Boot Camp bomb], and
2] fan control in the MacBook Pro models.

Did you know that simply knowing that something exists, doesn\'t really demonstrate anykind of wisdom unless you actually know more about it than that it just exists?

Apple didn\'t START developing Boot Camp because these other goofballs we\'re hacking away, this dual boot capability was already underway at Apple and was due for release in 10.5 Leopard.

The ONLY reason Apple released this BETA \"Boot Camp\" [temporary name] software, was to avoid technical support nightmares that would surely arise from people trying to hack windows onto their Macs using sloppy hacks, and then calling Apple to help them fix their Macs.

Apple, knowing the importance of quality control between an OS and it\'s hardware, figured it was best to release it\'s beta software [which is obviously more refined in it\'s Beta state rhan the OnMac.net project could ever be, and even more stable in it\'s beta form than most of miCrapsoft\'s \"final candidate\" software] rather than to have to deal with a bunch of amateurs using an amatuer hack to get an amatuer windows OS installed alongside a professional OS like Mac OS X.

Andrew87 wrote :
It\'s even rumoured that OS X worked better on a PC, this is before Apple switched to Intel.


Rumors. Gotta love \'em. But hey. it might\'ve been true. Kind of irrelevant now though since we\'re on Intel. Apple\'s had Mac running on x86 hardware since 1992 BTW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project

So your point was...?
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 2:42 pm
ConQuest to me it looks like you have been spoon fed apple fed propoganda. also apple are trying to increase their market share it is very inportant steve jobs said that him self... the reason apple wont release x86 osx is becuase they have massive profit margines on their hardware and if they did release osx for PC's they would have to lower the price of their overpriced systems.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 3:04 pm
Your whole argument is based on quality control. Macs come at a premium, i.e. more money for less capable hardware. PC users can also get better quality if they're willing to spend more. I built my PC two and a half years ago and overclocked the hell out of it, to this day it still works flawlessly. The cost? Under £800 and it runs VDJ using timecode with video mixing without trouble. However, I want to upgrade not because my computer is malfunctioning but because I prefer to have something closer to the best I can get at the time, that's the sort of world we're in, don't give me that crap about Macs superior reliability being the reason for the 6yr upgrade cycle. Also it's not that Macs outperform PCs, it's quite the opposite. It's a fact humans are greedy, look at all the people wanting VDJ 4.0 when 3.4 is still better than it's competition, there's no reason for 80% of us to want the upgrade, but we do.

Also why completely dismiss the post below mine, the one that really damages all your talk about Macs being troublefree?

This topic is seriously offtopic now, time for lockage?

 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 3:07 pm
SimonBal1984 wrote :
I just like the fact that Mac users and steve jobs used to say Power PC was bmore powerfull than x86 and if ou run OSx on a prescott p4 it our performs a g5 (singlecore) in non multithreaded apps.


Oh, the wonderful world of skewed benchmarks.

Don't get it twisted, PowerPC is a superior architecture than x86/x64. That's why ALL 3 major gaming consoles [Sony Playstation, Nintendo Wii, xbox 360] kicked Intel and the x86 architecture out of their next generation consoles in favor of PowerPC chips and/or the PowerPC RISC architecture. No matter how difficult the occasional processor intensive task is on our computers, those tasks are NOTHING compared to what those PowerPC processors and instruction sets are doing in those gaming conoles.

PowerPC processors simply could not be fabricated by IBM or Motorola in small enough sizes and with low enough heat emission to be put in Apple's laptops. That's why there was a professional level G5 PowerMac tower, and a consumer level G5 iMac, but not a professional level G5 PowerBook/Apple notebook.

The switch from PowerPC to Intel by Apple was a decision based on physical size and associated heat constraints, NOT performance constraints. Do you have any idea how embarassing it was for Intel to have lost all 3 gaming console contracts [especially microsoft's, of all companies] because they all decided to use the SUPERIOR PowerPC architecture? microsoft was the last company to ditch Intel for the xbox 360, only because they kept giving them a chance to prove that the x86 architecture could be better than the PowerPC architecture that their competitors had already decided to use.

microsoft had to dump x86 in favor of PowerPC because if they didn't, they would not be competitive in the game console market because Sony's and Nintendo's PowerPC based consoles would absolutely slaughter an x86 based xbox 360 performance wise.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/06/26.1.shtml

Again, the switch from PowerPC to Intel by Apple was a decision based on physical size and associated heat constraints, NOT performance constraints. PowerPC kills x86, as is being proven right now on the 360, and will be further proven on the PS3 and Nintendo Wii.

SimonBal1984 wrote :
whats also pretty funny is how mac users think they are safe..,


We don't think we are, we KNOW we [currently] are and always have been in the past. I'm not saying we won't get hit, I know we will. And when that happens , the score will be 1 for Mac compared to 114,000+ for windows. Even if we ever get hit by 1,000 viruses, we'll still be [at least] 114% more secure than windows, but by that time there will be a lot more than only 114,000 viruses for that bug-ridden, swiss cheese holed OS.

SimonBal1984 wrote :
...mac users think they are safe.., and their is less venrrbilities in OS, which is wrong, OSX a test was done http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8727/

That's a chart on a blog for George Ou of Secunia security research group. As in, they're in the business of making money off of security vulnerabilities, and unless they say that there ARE some, then they won't have any business... from the Mac side... windows vulnerabilities however, will continue to keep them up and running though.

Oh, and from the authors of that site which links to that same article you just referenced:
"Ou's is a meaningless exercise. In the past five years and counting, zero Macs — out of tens of millions — have been infected with a virus. Clearly, Windows XP cannot match that record."

114,000 known viruses for windows vs. 0 for mac in 2005. THAT is the cold, hard REALITY.

I don't care so much about what some analyst says COULD happen in the future, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I care more about what HAS and IS happening right now. If I can't avoid something that HAS happened and CONTINUES to happen today, why would I care about what MIGHT happen tomorrow?

It's fact vs. fiction. Deal with the fact that windows problems number in the hundreds of thousands NOW, and that Macs have NONE NOW. You can fictionalize all you want along with George Ou, but I don't care much for ignorant fairy tales.

For a REAL laugh, just read the comments for that same blog entry. Everyone pretty much knows the guy is an incompetent moron:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=165

SimonBal1984 wrote :
additionaly MacUsers seem to think they are imune from spyware and other attacks, when in reality it more likely a mac users computer will be exploited than your typical windows user due to their ignorance.


Wow. I'm speechless. So the fact that we can PROVE that Mac's don't have ANY serious problems RIGHT NOW [and NEVER have], and that we can also PROVE that windows is PLAGUED with problems RIGHT NOW, makes US ignorant?!

Ignorance is not understanding that Mac and Linux users are safer because we have better OS's built on a better [Unix] architecture.

Reality is not encountered through belief or opinion, it is based on knowledge and fact.

You can wish that Mac users and their Macs will one day have problems all you want, and we will have some eventually. but we'll still be hundreds of times safer than windows users. Even on our worst day, microsoft windows users can only pray to be that "lucky".

However, I won't wish that problems will occur for windows users and their windows boxes...

You've already got them.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 4:22 pm
alraight!;) hehe


Think enough have been said... Mac vs PC's .... the topic have been around for ever, and people will always disagree...

They are just two different OS, people can make up their own mind on what to get:)


"This topic is seriously offtopic now, time for lockage? "

yeah... topic was about XP protection...

 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 4:42 pm
SimonBal1984 wrote :
ConQuest to me it looks like you have been spoon fed apple fed propoganda. also apple are trying to increase their market share it is very inportant steve jobs said that him self... the reason apple wont release x86 osx is becuase they have massive profit margines on their hardware and if they did release osx for PC's they would have to lower the price of their overpriced systems.


Um, no. Actually SJ has stated on several occasions that marketshare is meaningless, but that "install base" IS important]. He has re-enforced this by pointing out that [paraphrasing] "Neither BMW, Porsche, or Mercedes have more than 5% marketshare in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW, Porsche, or Mercedes?"

And he's right. They're not going away, and people make an effort to try and get those cars. It's called exclusivity provided by superior machinery.

Just like a Mac.

Unfortunately, MOST people are stuck with Ford, Hyundai, etc. The low quality, volume priced, mass marketed junk.

Just like pc's.

Obviously, they'll defend their junk because it's all they know about and have. They won't know how much better one of the exclusive cars actually is, until they try one. That's when they'll realize what a POJ they had all along, and they'd never go back.

Just like switchers.

Mac systems aren't overpriced. A comparably equipped windows box ALWAYS costs more and lasts a 3rd of the time on average. It's called TCO [total cost of ownership]. People are realizing that getting a cheap pc that they're gonna replace in 2 years and fight with the entire [short] time they have it, just isn't worth it. Now they'll gladly pay a couple of hundred dollars more [if necessary, which usually is not anyway] to get a Mac that will work 3x longer, reliably and securely the entire time.

People want computers to be more than overpriced typewriters and gaming consoles now. They are also becoming more dependant on their computers as they spend more time on them and store more important data on ithem. They no longer will tolerate the classic "my computer got [insert the latest windows problem here] and I had to re-format and install windows, but I lost all of my work/files/data."

People KNOW they should back-up there computers, but they still don't WAY to often. So now they are just switching to Macs which don't ABSOLUTELY require them to back everything up all the time because of serious Mac problems, because there aren't any serious Mac problems.
 
Posted Mon 05 Jun 06 @ 4:51 pm
77%