Can you do this on the PC?

The problem with Apple ( and the reason why they only have 5% marketshare) is the fact that they don't have a budget system
 
koffiejunkie said:
I'm not sure how much of it is really Nokia's fault. I used to blame them for the bluetooth headaches, until I started using the very same phone in Linux and more recently OSX, and realised that their phones are actually pretty consistent in the way they communicate. Their windows software are normally phone specific, to match each phone's features (this can be unified and improved so that one data suite will work with all their phones and just give you what the phone provides - they should have done this a long time ago). But the protocols used to access e.g. files on your phone (OBEX) are pretty standard. Windows just doesn't know how to deal with it.


This goes for their Wireless support too. Each manufacturer wants you to use their own little silly tray-applet to configure your wireless. And this is, again, in part Microsoft's fault. Wireless networking was already pretty popular for a while and it was clearly the way forward, before they woke up and started building support into the OS. And the support in XP is still unreliable, even on non-cheapy quality hardware. I've lost count of the number of recent notebooks I've had to configure that wouldn't connect to a wireless network, can't keep the stable connection, etc unless you use the manufacturer app. One thing it does more often than is acceptible is mis-detect the type of network encryption, even though iwlist in Linux on the same hardware gives me accurate results 100% of the time and the Mac connects as soon as I click on the network name.



That's why it's important that people for who the Mac is perfect go out and buy it despite the small price premium. The more people use it, the more software will become available for it. This is already happening. If apple could achieve just 25% of installed base, it would mean stronger competition and the result of that would be better software for you and me, regardless of platform.

EDIT: To add to that, it's vitally important that people who are interested in or are considering switching to Mac, but are kept back by the applications they use, write to those vendors and express their interest for OSX versions of said software. Otherwise these companies just wouldn't know.
Click to expand...

Unlikely when you want something like MS Office:o
 
Saule said:
Unlikely when you want something like MS Office:o
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that there has always been a Mac version of MS Office, and a new one is on the way, I'll entertain this idea.

Office is a pretty tough nut to crack, but if OSX install base grow to 25% of the market, you might just see that change somewhat. Think about it. The sheer momentum behind MS Office is not the handful of advanced users who need Excel's more advanced programming features, or something similar. Its the average user, whose work can be accomplished in any Office suite you care to mention. At work I collaborate with my colleagues on Word docs, Excel sheets, and Powerpoint slides. The stuff isn't very advanced but it's certainly not basic. I use Linux at work, hence OpenOffice. I haven't had an issue and none of my colleagues have had any problem opening and working with the MS Office files I've saved. The only thorn in my side is the lack of something that integrates nicely with Exchange, but that's not a problem on the Mac - Entourage does this pretty nicely.

Of course, this won't happen all by itself, Apple will have to put some marketing muscle behind it. To date they haven't really addressed the office environment, except maybe a little with iWork.

Show that the alternative is viable, has the support of a big company behind it, and can do the job, and people will go for it. You'll be surprised how many people, and I'm talking about small company decision makers, who don't know anything about Apple beyond an iPod, will buy Macs if their IT guy tells them to if they happen to be shopping for new kit.
 
koffiejunkie said:
This goes for their Wireless support too. Each manufacturer wants you to use their own little silly tray-applet to configure your wireless. And this is, again, in part Microsoft's fault. Wireless networking was already pretty popular for a while and it was clearly the way forward, before they woke up and started building support into the OS. And the support in XP is still unreliable, even on non-cheapy quality hardware. I've lost count of the number of recent notebooks I've had to configure that wouldn't connect to a wireless network, can't keep the stable connection, etc unless you use the manufacturer app. One thing it does more often than is acceptible is mis-detect the type of network encryption, even though iwlist in Linux on the same hardware gives me accurate results 100% of the time and the Mac connects as soon as I click on the network name.
Click to expand...

Oddly, I've had the opposite result with wireless - the manufacturer apps (SMC, DLink, Zyxel, Gigabyte, and others) give me endless hassles with their own apps. If I install only the driver, and use Windows wireless networking, I have no issues.
 
I've also found the manufacturer's apps kinda suck a bit and it's another thing running etc. Windows built in seems perfectly fine for basic connectivity.
 
Claymore said:
Oddly, I've had the opposite result with wireless - the manufacturer apps (SMC, DLink, Zyxel, Gigabyte, and others) give me endless hassles with their own apps. If I install only the driver, and use Windows wireless networking, I have no issues.
Click to expand...

I never claimed the manufacturer's apps were particularly good. Just that often they are the only way to get it to work properly or at all. Sometime it's the other way around.

Wich is exactly my complaint - it's not most consistent/predictable/reliable wireless/bluetooth stack around around. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X