Why Do People Still Buy Microsoft?

[natatos]

my mom got a dell because it can run the same software as her work

 

[rajalot]

Simply because Microsoft does make good products. If Linux were good, everyone would be using that one, but it isn't. Even when it's free less than 1% use it! Then there is this price/performance ratio between PC & Mac and even more importantly PC's are way more future proof. Let me clarify!
This is a computer I'm going to build in next ~2 months:
- Antec Sonata III
- 500W Netzteil in Gehäuse eingebaut
- AMD Phenom II 720 BE
- Asus M4A78T-E AM3 790GX
- Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB
- A-Data 2x2Gt DDR3 1333MHz
- Ati Radeon HD 4850 PCIE 512MB

That costs under 700€ and has potential for CrossfireX, 16GB of DDR3 RAM, 6 SATAII HDD's and more - if needed. I assume that Socket AM3 will last as long as AM2 did, so I can upgrade it's processor for at least the next 5 years and graph card for at least the same duration. Then there is this overclocking potential, which means 0-cost performance improvement easily. And if that isn't enough, I can still spare my display if I need to build a new system, my current 17" Hyundai is 5 years old and perfectly fine. Operating system will move, too. Mac is too limiting in all those regards, even mac pro's.

Then if I don't aim for enthuastic and the most future proof segment it's possible to build Intel Atom based mini-PC that runs XP just fine for less than 300€ with 1TB of space.

Windows is way more flexible, that's why Mac's will not take over it. Ever. No matter how advanced or easy-to-use. Or at least for so long as Jobs is running the place and keeping the stupid vertical integration with stupid ObjC dev tools.

 

[0098386]

Wiis and PS3 have the average of 2-4% failure rates and the MS 360 has been significatly higher 16-32% of all units sold. I never heard of any Apple computer or hardware product fail at that rate, i could be wrong

Yes, and that is MS's only hardware with such high failure rates. The original Xbox, Microsoft mice, keyboards, Zunes (barring that epic hiccup with the dates). Their hardware is sorted.

I just always find it funny when people say "Microsoft can't make hardware!" and cite the one example where they went balls up or "Microsoft can't make software!" whilst making the most commonly used office suite and OS going. XP itself is perfect now from a stability standpoint, it's been 2 years and I have never had a virus under XP, never had a bluescreen crash. OSX has been the same.

 

[blueicedj]

The original Xbox was never a big hit, but the 360 holds probably 40% of the gaming market (i'm guessing... PS3 at 40% and Wii at 20%).

Very wrong. The Wii has sold way more consoles than anyone else. Microsoft follows far behind with Sony following even further. The PS3 is a dying system. Analysts even expect the Wii will sell more units than the xbox and PS3 combined in 2009

The Wii has sold 44.96 million units
the xbox 360 has sold 27.93 million units
and the PS3 has sold 21.3 million units

 

[elppa]

stupid ObjC dev tools.

Stupid in what way. Care to expand?

 

[rajalot]

Stupid in what way. Care to expand?

OS X is too tied to that language. If you really want to make something, you gotta learn that. And how many does? Under 1% of coder population. Windows and Linux give you more flexibility in developement, too.

 

[dscuber9000]

I think people keep buying Windows because they are just used to it, and there are a lot of people out there who don't even realize there is something other than windows. And then there is the whole issue that Macbooks cost $1200 when my sister got a PC laptop for only $600.

As for Xbox 360, the answer is simple. It is cheaper than the PlayStation 3 (and even the Wii now) and it has the best games. Of course, that is just opinion, but that seems to be the majority opinion of hard-core gamers. The technical issues suck, but if you look at the PlayStation 2, which was very successful, it had some technical issues as well (though not nearly as many as Xbox 360). Gamers will buy the console with the best games, and that is usually the only factor that goes into it. Especially when the console is at a good price-point.

Why Zune gets respectable sales, I have no idea.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

If you look at a computer as an appliance, much like a toaster or microwave, it's hard to see why someone would want to spend more money for an inferior product.

Most people look at computers as appliances that enable them to do something, much like a microwave enables them to heat things fast.

Following this logic, you explain to me why anyone in their right mind would get a mac?

 

[NT1440]

If you look at a computer as an appliance, much like a toaster or microwave, it's hard to see why someone would want to spend more money for an inferior product.

Most people look at computers as appliances that enable them to do something, much like a microwave enables them to heat things fast.

Following this logic, you explain to me why anyone in their right mind would get a mac?

And there is a growing trend with the youth (people under 40) who have grown up with computers and devices. They arent JUST appliances to MANY people today, and that trend will continue to grow as they become more and more the center of our personal and professional lives.

 

[boonlar]

And there is a growing trend with the youth (people under 40) who have grown up with computers and devices. They arent JUST appliances to MANY people today, and that trend will continue to grow as they become more and more the center of our personal and professional lives.

if they aren't appliances then what are they? fashion statements?

 

[Eidorian]

if they aren't appliances then what are they? fashion statements?

I know quite a few people that call Macs fashion statements.

 

[blackhand1001]

I know quite a few people that call Macs fashion statements.

The sad thing is that this is true. I have heard some people say that something by Apple is better than so and so product solely because of its styling.

Apple isn't going to break into the business sector until they can offer solutions that fit. All in ones are a no go in an Office setting because their upgrade capabilities are limited and they have a higher failure rate. I know its not going to happen anytime soon, but if apple truly wants to penetrate into the business market, they need to offer a cheap midrange tower. I have screwed around with a 6 year old dell that a friend didn't want anymore to see if i could run OS X on it, successfully after a lot of frustration, and its quite responsive and even the lowest core 2 chips today blow away the aging Pentium 4 in this thing. Simply put, very few enterprises need every one of their desktop to have dual Xeons. While low-end Dell home computers are nothing run home about, midrange business desktop's from them are very well thought out and put together which is why you will see Dell desktop's in so many businesses. Apple has a ton of potential in this market sector. In my opinion, the lost sales of the iMacs and the Mac Pros would would be far outweighed buy the increase in sales in the business market, the largest market share in the computer industry.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think Apple blew it by NOT offering a small desktop tower machine that can be user-upgraded.

Given the price of 24" 1920x1200 monitors nowadays even from LG and Samsung, Apple could build a small tower machine with the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9xxxS CPU plus a third-party 24" monitor for around US$1,200 "out the door," a lot less pricey than most iMac configurations.

As such, I can buy a very top-line quad-core CPU PC running Windows Vista Home Premium Edition SP1, 8 GB of DDR3 RAM, 1 TB Serial ATA-II hard drive, 512 MB nVidia or ATI graphics card, and BD-ROM/DVD+/-R drive plus a good third-party 24" flat panel for just over US$1,300. Apple is going to lose a lot of sales to the higher-end PC market over what amounts of incremental improvements to their iMac line.

 

[Eidorian]

The sad thing is that this is true. I have heard some people say that something by Apple is better than so and so product solely because of its styling.

Apple isn't going to break into the business sector until they can offer solutions that fit. All in ones are a no go in an Office setting because their upgrade capabilities are limited and they have a higher failure rate. I know its not going to happen anytime soon, but if apple truly wants to penetrate into the business market, they need to offer a cheap midrange tower. I have screwed around with a 6 year old dell that a friend didn't want anymore to see if i could run OS X on it, successfully after a lot of frustration, and its quite responsive and even the lowest core 2 chips today blow away the aging Pentium 4 in this thing. Simply put, very few enterprises need every one of their desktop to have dual Xeons. While low-end Dell home computers are nothing run home about, midrange business desktop's from them are very well thought out and put together which is why you will see Dell desktop's in so many businesses. Apple has a ton of potential in this market sector. In my opinion, the lost sales of the iMacs and the Mac Pros would would be far outweighed buy the increase in sales in the business market, the largest market share in the computer industry.

Celeron Dual Cores and the so called lowly E5200 are more than enough for the mainstream. Slap a decent HD48xx card with the E5200 and you have a budget Intel gaming machine for $400-500.

Lets not even go into how far you can overclock these things.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think Apple blew it by NOT offering a small desktop tower machine that can be user-upgraded.

Except that probably 98% of computer users never upgrade anything beyond RAM. Apple knows this, even if you don't.

 

[Syonidism]

if half the gamez on doze would be available in macz, i'd totally go %100 however im more of a gamer, hence %40 windows %60 mac.

Eventhough I lean towards mac's i have to give it to windows, they seem to be the scapegoat of everything just because they had a bad streak with vista(and probably with win 7) however one must remember that when macs were first available they were quite expensive compared to pc's. But they managed to pull out of that.

Oh and also; Most of your communications satellites are run on linux. Hence your precious internetz is pretty much based on linux.

Not to burst anyones bubble or anything but, umm. isn't linux free?

Garsh, linux IS free and it is also open for specific SPECIALIZATION and IMPROVEMENTS depending on the user.

ouch.

"the best things in life are free"

-oxygen
-love
-internet
-linux


-google phone? (no idea read something about on /. or something)

oh and xbox sux hardcore. Sorry all you Xbox fans but ps3 nailed that.

 

[DJ567]

if half the gamez on doze would be available in macz, i'd totally go %100 however im more of a gamer, hence %40 windows %60 mac.

Eventhough I lean towards mac's i have to give it to windows, they seem to be the scapegoat of everything just because they had a bad streak with vista(and probably with win 7) however one must remember that when macs were first available they were quite expensive compared to pc's. But they managed to pull out of that.

Oh and also; Most of your communications satellites are run on linux. Hence your precious internetz is pretty much based on linux.

Not to burst anyones bubble or anything but, umm. isn't linux free?

Garsh, linux IS free and it is also open for specific SPECIALIZATION and IMPROVEMENTS depending on the user.

ouch.

"the best things in life are free"

-oxygen
-love
-internet
-linux


-google phone? (no idea read something about on /. or something)

oh and xbox sux hardcore. Sorry all you Xbox fans but ps3 nailed that.

since when is the internet free

linux is not always free also

 

[blackhand1001]

Except that probably 98% of computer users never upgrade anything beyond RAM. Apple knows this, even if you don't.

Maybe 98% of the consumer market. But in the enterprise, I know from experience that systems on average are upgraded several times before being replaced.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe 98% of the consumer market. But in the enterprise, I know from experience that systems on average are upgraded several times before being replaced.

It's been said a million times before: Apple isn't making computers for that market. If they wanted to, they could, but clearly they don't have an interest.

 

[dejo]

But in the enterprise, I know from experience that systems on average are upgraded several times before being replaced.

Personal experience != entire enterprise market.

 

[jklara]

I'm new to mac but from what I've seen of their software, I have no choice. I do a lot of word processing and WORD 2008, without the macros, is hellaciously wrong. Word Perfect has nothing for mac. Pages may be great for spread sheets but it doesn't even come close for word processing. Someone recommended Sequel but I haven't checked it out yet. If you are so down on microsoft, what do you recommend as an alternative?

 

[ziggyonice]

Why do people still buy Microsoft? The answer is complicated, but it comes down to several things, of which -- most importantly -- is timing.

Yes, timing: the situation is generational. I was born in the late 80s, just as the Mac was getting big. And during my years as a child of the mid-90s, Apple's products started going down the drain. My generation discovered the dark ages of Apple products, when using a Mac was "uncool" and PCs were top-of-the-line. It was my generation that yelled out, "Macs suck!" and started the battle between Mac vs. PC. Overall, not a great thing to be a part of.

But interestingly, the generations growing up now are seeing Apple in a different light -- where iPods, iPhones, and even Macs are cool. They don't see what the dark ages brought. While my generation will still consist of some stubborn individuals who still swear by their PCs, many of them are dropping off to switch to the Mac and give it another chance. But wait til the later years, as even now, the Mac is coming back.

 

[Kennedy]

ziggy, i hope the world takes a hint from apple. may we all come out of these dark economic times stronger than ever before.

 

[Goona]

It had better be more than hardware, since they lose money on hardware. But then so do Nintendo and Sony. No, the point is the Xbox division has only recently begun to post quarterly profits, and this is after years of losses. They've got quite a hole to dig themselves out of, and it will take years. This was forecasted at the very beginning of the Xbox program, btw. So some of us at least are not surprised.

But again, the very simple point I am making here is that Apple could not attempt this kind of strategy without being branded as a failure. All of Apple's new products are expected to be profitable right out of the box, in fact very very profitable, or they will be seen to have failed. Nobody, at least not anybody outside of Apple, would be defending their "long term strategy" if the iPod or the iPhone had lost money for years on end.

Completely different standards of success apply to these two companies. When Microsoft tries something new, everyone looks high and low for signs that they will succeed, because that's what the conventional wisdom dictates will happen. For the same reason, when Apple tries something, everyone looks high and low for signs that they will fail. It's been that way -- forever.

Well said, couldn't have put it better. Watch Apple release a product that doesn't sell in the millions right away but still makes money and they will get bashed, look at Apple TV. Microsoft releases a product that is constantly loosing money and no one gets on their back about it and people defend them.

 

[Goona]

I think part of that problem with apple is they brought it on themselves on how they over hype everything. They brag about doing all this stuff and making money right out of the box. This prevents them from making a long term move and investment that does not turn a profit right out of the box, even if in the long run it is a much better idea.

Yeah like Microsoft doesn't hype their products but yet they still get a pass.