comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:39:07 -0400, ZnU wrote:

>In article ,
> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:24:54 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:46:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article ,
>> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:37:44 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> I like; 91 out of 100 computers are Windows machines - but
>> >> >> >> only seven out of 100 are macs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Could someone explain to me precisely why market share is
>> >> >> >supposed to be such an important factor in consumer purchasing
>> >> >> >decisions in the personal computer industry?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you've ever tried to buy parts for a Yugo you'd understand. 8)
>> >> >
>> >> >The Mac has everything the average consumer needs, though, and apps
>> >> >are often better.
>> >>
>> >> So long as by 'better' you mean 'has an Apple logo'. This has been
>> >> made abundantly clear by all the orgasmic proclamations by Maccies
>> >> that the new version of Safari is 'superior to all other browsers'
>> >> when its merely on par with them.
>> >
>> >It's about on par with Firefox for standards compliance, and a bit
>> >faster. There's a huge gap between Firefox/Safari and IE.
>>
>> I've been using it for two days. There's no noticeable difference in
>> speed. I've never had the rendering problems with IE that everyone
>> keeps harping about.
>
>You don't have rendering problems with IE because it has sufficiently
>high market share that web developers spend untold hours working around
>its rendering bugs. Believe me, you don't want to see what happens when
>a site developed for standards-compliant browsers is first tested in IE,
>before the painstaking processes of working around IE's bugs begins.

If most of their users are using IE then they should be writing their
sites for IE. That they don't only shows how arrogant and self-serving
they are. I go into more details in another post.

>
>This state of affairs is, by the way, pretty much a direct result of the
>fact that Microsoft allowed IE to stagnate for six years because they
>figured since it was tied to Windows, it could stay on top without
>actually being any good.

It doesn't matter why. Developers need to remember that they are there
to serve the user. Too many of them have the attitude that users are
an afterthought that they can ignore.

>
>> The fonts in Safari seem to be a bit fuzzier but not to the level
>> that would make me quit using it.
>
>It uses OS X's font rendering, which favors letterform accuracy over
>snapping everything into the screen's pixel grid.

Somehow other browsers are able to do this grid snapping and render
fonts non-fuzzy. Apple might want to look into that. Fuzzy isn't good
no matter what behind the scenes technical reasons you can come up
with.

>
>> There's no obvious way to add search engines to the search window. I
>> do like the look of it. It shows Safari's KDE roots. KDE is my
>> favorite GUI.
>
>Err... huh? None of Safari's GUI shell code is derived from KDE.

It still looks very KDE-ish.

> The UI
>in the Windows version of Safari is basically the Unified window
>appearance from Leopard, with in-window menus and a couple of other
>visual tweaks to better match Windows standards.

I guess we know where Apple got its ideas for Leopard's look then.

>
>[snip]
>
>> >> >Sure, there are specific markets where the Mac doesn't have
>> >> >compelling (or even any) offerings. But most people aren't in those
>> >> >markets. And there are other markets where the Mac is far and away
>> >> >the best choice.
>> >>
>> >> Behind the RDF anyway.
>> >
>> >Video production,
>>
>> All of the professionals offering testimonials on Adobe's website
>> would disagree with you.
>> http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/customers/
>
>I'm in the industry, so I have a fair idea of what the lay of the land
>looks like.

You've been to what? 1%, 5% of actual studios?

> After Effects has a decent following in the visual effects
>market, much of it Mac-based. But Premiere Pro, Adobe's non-linear
>editing app, isn't all that popular among pros. Final Cut Pro (which is,
>of course, Mac-only) seems to dominate, with some Avid mixed in as you
>move up-market. A fair bit of the Avid installations are Mac-based as
>well, of course.
>
>Windows in general is found more in visual effects than editing, though
>I'm not sure it's in the majority even there, except perhaps for 3D. But
>the visual effects market is fairly small compared with the non-linear
>editing market.
>
>> > pro audio,
>>
>> Which explians all of the pro audio apps for Windows.
>
>I come into regular contact with the pro audio world. I've been in
>probably a half-dozen facilities in the last year. Haven't seen a
>Windows-based audio workstation yet.

Again its six out of how many hundreds, if not thousands of studios in
the world?

>
>> > desktop publishing,
>>
>> See above. Or are you going to repeat George's assertion that
>> companies are spending $1500 for softwatre to announce the company
>> picnic when their PCs come with software capable of doing that?
>
>You might have some sort of point, if I'd claimed nobody ever did DTP on
>Windows. I didn't claim that, of course. I merely claimed the Mac
>dominated. Which it does.
>
>> > and certain branches of web development.
>>
>> Which explains why all of the guys I know who do web development do it
>> on Linux boxes.
>
>It depends what sort of development, which is why I said "certain
>branches". Enterprise Java development is fairly likely to be Windows or
>Linux based. On the other hand, the Ruby on Rails community is
>overwhelmingly Mac-based.
>
>> > This is not particularly arguable.
>>
>> To a Maccie living behind the RDF. In the real, world not so much.
>
>You might try the real world of creative professionals, rather than of
>accountants.

You might want to broaden your view beyond a half dozen and trying to
extrapolate from that.




--

Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008.