<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Here We Go Again: Macs Are About Quality, Not Price</title>
	<atom:link href="http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/</link>
	<description>Reviews, News, and Opinion About Personal Technology by Harry McCracken &#38; Friends</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:35:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: talbog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; hey-lauren-is-apples-17-inch-macbook-pro-expensi</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-3/#comment-46282</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[talbog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; hey-lauren-is-apples-17-inch-macbook-pro-expensi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 18:24:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-46282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] see this passion crop up in some of the comments on Ed Oswald&#8217;s two recent posts (here and here) on Microsoft&#8217;s new &#8220;Lauren&#8221; ad comparing 17-inch Windows laptops to the MacBook [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] see this passion crop up in some of the comments on Ed Oswald&#8217;s two recent posts (here and here) on Microsoft&#8217;s new &#8220;Lauren&#8221; ad comparing 17-inch Windows laptops to the MacBook [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: P Smith</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-3/#comment-21614</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[P Smith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-21614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apple lost me and many others because of two basic mistakes they made for 25 years since the first Mac and have only yet corrected one of them.

1) They closed the box.

What made the Apple II great was the ability of third party makers to build cards that were compatible with the Apple II such as memory boards, the Mockingboard sound card, etc.  It set the standard that still exists in the Intel-based PC world.

By closing the Macintosh, Apple made themselves the sole source of both hardware and software.  With their high prices and lack of software options, not to mention the bugginess and black-and-white only screens, people moved to PCs for both cost and flexibility.  Apple has still barely recovered from this, and only since they allowed users to add on external components.

2)  Deliberate obsolescence of software.

If you buy an Intel-based machine and use Microshaft&#039;s lousy OS, it can do one thing that Macs are deliberately designed not to do: run old software.  Some people still use older software for specific reasons (e.g. custom made POS programs, internal accounting packages, etc.) and the idea of being prevented from using programs integral to their business is horrifying.  Add to that, there are a lot of people who still use old programs simply because they like them: Word Perfect 5 is still considered &quot;the best word processor ever&quot; by some (not me), and many others are nostalgic like to use old games, whether their own or &quot;abandonware&quot;.

An Intel machine made today can run software in a command window that was made for an 8086 4.77MHz PC, or sometimes old CP/M software.  (Why anyone would need to, I don&#039;t know.)  With a Macintosh, however, trying to run anything designed for more than one previous OS generation is near impossible.  Today&#039;s OS X seems to be deliberately made to be incompatible with anything designed for Mac OS 8.  Who would want to buy a computer that forces you to also buy overpriced software every year or two?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apple lost me and many others because of two basic mistakes they made for 25 years since the first Mac and have only yet corrected one of them.</p>
<p>1) They closed the box.</p>
<p>What made the Apple II great was the ability of third party makers to build cards that were compatible with the Apple II such as memory boards, the Mockingboard sound card, etc.  It set the standard that still exists in the Intel-based PC world.</p>
<p>By closing the Macintosh, Apple made themselves the sole source of both hardware and software.  With their high prices and lack of software options, not to mention the bugginess and black-and-white only screens, people moved to PCs for both cost and flexibility.  Apple has still barely recovered from this, and only since they allowed users to add on external components.</p>
<p>2)  Deliberate obsolescence of software.</p>
<p>If you buy an Intel-based machine and use Microshaft&#8217;s lousy OS, it can do one thing that Macs are deliberately designed not to do: run old software.  Some people still use older software for specific reasons (e.g. custom made POS programs, internal accounting packages, etc.) and the idea of being prevented from using programs integral to their business is horrifying.  Add to that, there are a lot of people who still use old programs simply because they like them: Word Perfect 5 is still considered &#8220;the best word processor ever&#8221; by some (not me), and many others are nostalgic like to use old games, whether their own or &#8220;abandonware&#8221;.</p>
<p>An Intel machine made today can run software in a command window that was made for an 8086 4.77MHz PC, or sometimes old CP/M software.  (Why anyone would need to, I don&#8217;t know.)  With a Macintosh, however, trying to run anything designed for more than one previous OS generation is near impossible.  Today&#8217;s OS X seems to be deliberately made to be incompatible with anything designed for Mac OS 8.  Who would want to buy a computer that forces you to also buy overpriced software every year or two?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-3/#comment-18010</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marco]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-18010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guys, c&#039;mon, PCs do cost less than MACs!  This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

The inside of MACs and PCs are very similar, similar chips and board manufacture.  Hell, an HP quality wise is just as good as a MAC, just look it up on the net.

I like MACs, they are nice machines, but you are paying a large premium for the operating system.  The money doesn&#039;t go into the hardware.

I bought a quad core HP for $600 on special.  You can&#039;t get that deal with a MAC, no way.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guys, c&#8217;mon, PCs do cost less than MACs!  This is not an opinion, it is a fact.</p>
<p>The inside of MACs and PCs are very similar, similar chips and board manufacture.  Hell, an HP quality wise is just as good as a MAC, just look it up on the net.</p>
<p>I like MACs, they are nice machines, but you are paying a large premium for the operating system.  The money doesn&#8217;t go into the hardware.</p>
<p>I bought a quad core HP for $600 on special.  You can&#8217;t get that deal with a MAC, no way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-3/#comment-13163</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adrian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-13163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ Googler

I have one and I have experienced two of those bugs. Both of those bugs were fixed within&#039; 10 minutes of updating my system after purchasing. Don&#039;t believe everything you read off google my friend.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Googler</p>
<p>I have one and I have experienced two of those bugs. Both of those bugs were fixed within&#8217;10 minutes of updating my system after purchasing. Don&#8217;t believe everything you read off google my friend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toshboy</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-3/#comment-13144</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Toshboy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-13144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Personally I think the argument Apple is about quality is a bit too easy, I have yet to see any proof of this. Almost every pc brand claims the quality statement, are we supposed to accept this as a given? I&#039;m a Toshiba fan myself, I&#039;m sure there are also examples of things going wrong with a Toshiba too but they let their laptops be tested by an independent institute (TüV), drop test , spill test etc. At the very least that is a decent shot at an objective judgement, not like just shouting it&#039;s about quality ro rationalize paying twice as much. All credist to the splendid Mac marketeers, they have succeeded in making people feel good about paying a lot of money to join an elite group, looking down on those who can&#039;t afford or choose not to pay extra.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally I think the argument Apple is about quality is a bit too easy, I have yet to see any proof of this. Almost every pc brand claims the quality statement, are we supposed to accept this as a given? I&#8217;m a Toshiba fan myself, I&#8217;m sure there are also examples of things going wrong with a Toshiba too but they let their laptops be tested by an independent institute (TüV), drop test , spill test etc. At the very least that is a decent shot at an objective judgement, not like just shouting it&#8217;s about quality ro rationalize paying twice as much. All credist to the splendid Mac marketeers, they have succeeded in making people feel good about paying a lot of money to join an elite group, looking down on those who can&#8217;t afford or choose not to pay extra.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zev Mo Bloggin&#8217; &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Hey, Lauren! Is Apple’s 17-Inch MacBook Pro Expensive?</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-3/#comment-13078</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zev Mo Bloggin&#8217; &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Hey, Lauren! Is Apple’s 17-Inch MacBook Pro Expensive?]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-13078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] can see this passion crop up in some of the comments on Ed Oswald’s two recent posts (here and here) on Microsoft’s new “Lauren” ad comparing 17-inch Windows laptops to the MacBook Pro. I’ve [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] can see this passion crop up in some of the comments on Ed Oswald’s two recent posts (here and here) on Microsoft’s new “Lauren” ad comparing 17-inch Windows laptops to the MacBook Pro. I’ve [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GT3</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-2/#comment-12255</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[GT3]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-12255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Microsoft ad isn&#039;t about price or quality.  It&#039;s about options, especially on the mid to lower end of the spectrum.  Lauren was &#039;right&#039; in that she correctly identified that Apple didn&#039;t meet her specified needs/wants.

No where did she (i.e. Microsoft) claim that Apple wasn&#039;t a good buy in general.  Just that there is a segment of the market not currently well served by Apple, a segment of the market made more popular currently  by the condition of other markets.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Microsoft ad isn&#8217;t about price or quality.  It&#8217;s about options, especially on the mid to lower end of the spectrum.  Lauren was &#8216;right&#8217;in that she correctly identified that Apple didn&#8217;t meet her specified needs/wants.</p>
<p>No where did she (i.e. Microsoft) claim that Apple wasn&#8217;t a good buy in general.  Just that there is a segment of the market not currently well served by Apple, a segment of the market made more popular currently  by the condition of other markets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MacGizmoGuy</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-2/#comment-12201</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MacGizmoGuy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-12201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judging from my website&#039;s statistics - there are two keywords that stand out across the board: &#039;CHEAPEST&#039; and &#039;BEST&#039;. And this is really more about a demographic and the human side of the technology equation, and less about the computer hardware itself. About the haves and the have-nots financial resources. About wisdom and experience. The younger want the Cheapest, and older visitors want the Best.

The old saying &#039;You Get What You Pay For&#039; is a truth one learns over one&#039;s lifetime. One only has to buy enough cheap JUNK at Wal*Mart over the years to learn when quality doesn&#039;t matter for certain things, and when it does for other products. And when it does, you gladly pay more knowing why.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Judging from my website&#8217;s statistics &#8211; there are two keywords that stand out across the board: &#8216;CHEAPEST&#8217;and &#8216;BEST&#8217;. And this is really more about a demographic and the human side of the technology equation, and less about the computer hardware itself. About the haves and the have-nots financial resources. About wisdom and experience. The younger want the Cheapest, and older visitors want the Best.</p>
<p>The old saying &#8216;You Get What You Pay For&#8217;is a truth one learns over one&#8217;s lifetime. One only has to buy enough cheap JUNK at Wal*Mart over the years to learn when quality doesn&#8217;t matter for certain things, and when it does for other products. And when it does, you gladly pay more knowing why.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Oswald</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-2/#comment-12170</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed Oswald]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-12170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Marc: Look through my previous posts.. especially the MobileMe one. Tell me if that was pro Apple ;) I got the riot act read to me by about 100 Mac enthusiasts :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marc: Look through my previous posts.. especially the MobileMe one. Tell me if that was pro Apple ;) I got the riot act read to me by about 100 Mac enthusiasts :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc</title>
		<link>http://technologizer.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-macs-are-about-quality-not-price/comment-page-2/#comment-12157</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marc]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://technologizer.com/?p=9984#comment-12157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ed: I will continue to come back. It&#039;s not the volume of Apple relate stories that I was commenting on, rather the pro-Apple stance that often seems to be taken. Hey, I owned a Mac once. Back when V.90 ruled.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed: I will continue to come back. It&#8217;s not the volume of Apple relate stories that I was commenting on, rather the pro-Apple stance that often seems to be taken. Hey, I owned a Mac once. Back when V.90 ruled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

