Windows Live Mail - now OS preferences

One of the early "posters" I think hit the on the head. Many users are not
interested in PC,s, Os,s, workarounds, obscure cures.
They just want a PC as a tool that works as intuitively and reliably as
possible. For that reason may people are happy to fork out
up to 100% more for a machine that does the same task as a MS product. Come
in Apple!!!!!!!. Sure, they are overpriced but they simply work "simply".
My daughter with the original problem is case in point. She comes with an
Apple history but her budget now made her go W8 on a HP "all in one"
instead.
A week or two later she is still trying to get the thing working instead of
her old Apple that just worked out of the box. I,m just guessing there will
never be another MS product in that household!
John


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...

In message , BillW50
writes:
In o.uk,
Andy Burns typed on Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:12:41 +0000:
[]
I think my decreasing order of preference would be

Win7
Win8 with Start8
WinXP
Win2K
Win8 without Start8

Mine is like this:

XP SP2
XP SP3
Win8 with/without Start8
Win7
Win2K
Linux
Android

So you prefer SP2 to SP3? I'm curious as to why - unless it's hardware
requirements (which I concede are somewhat higher for SP3 - I'd
certainly not try to run SP3 in less than ¾G, probably 1G if Firefox
might be used, and I think there are processor/graphics requirements
too). But if you have a non-hardware reason for preferring SP2, I'd be
interested to see it.

I'm interested that you include Linux and Android too. (Is Android
actually available as a desktop OS?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A lot of people think that being skinny is the happy ending, and its not.
Being happy is the happy ending. - Sarah Millican, in Radio Times 3-9 March
2012

John wrote, On 4/5/2014 11:40 PM:
One of the early "posters" I think hit the on the head. Many users are
not interested in PC,s, Os,s, workarounds, obscure cures.
They just want a PC as a tool that works as intuitively and reliably as
possible. For that reason may people are happy to fork out
up to 100% more for a machine that does the same task as a MS product.
Come in Apple!!!!!!!. Sure, they are overpriced but they simply work
"simply".
My daughter with the original problem is case in point. She comes with
an Apple history but her budget now made her go W8 on a HP "all in one"
instead.
A week or two later she is still trying to get the thing working instead
of her old Apple that just worked out of the box. I,m just guessing
there will never be another MS product in that household!
John


Everyone one is different.


My wife with no Windows 8 Experience and only using Win7 for email
(Outlook), internet use (IE) and uploading an occasional picture from
her camera and only a no-smart flip phone took about 1 day to be
comfortable with Windows 8 Modern UI and the Desktop on an i5 laptop.

One evening I removed the hard drive and inserted the Win7 drive so it
could be updated (not having done it for 2 months). Finished the update
and turned it off, went to bed with the intent of replacing the Win7
drive with the Win8 in the morning. The first thing she said before I
managed to get my first cup of coffee next morning was
'What did you do with *MY* Windows 8'

A few minutes later, she asked my how come I never told her about SkyDrive.



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

I think there's a lot to that. Apple is for people who
don't want to think about it. (Or who don't mind paying
a premium price to increase their chances of getting
laid by hanging around at Starbucks pretending to write
term papers.)

One thing I think they all could improve on, though,
is the presentation. Microsoft makes control more
available, but discourages people with abstruse tech
talk and warnings. Apple just plain hides things. Linux
distributions are beginning to look a lot like Windows.
("Root? No, root isn't root anymore. You want sudo.
How do you become sudo? Well, if you're qualified to
know you'll figure it out.... What, you want a UI for
that?... What's wrong with command line?... Why do
we have to put up with idiots like you in Linuxville?")

A computer *is* an extremely complex and powerful
machine. It's not easy to make it simple and intuitive.
But I think the major OSs and a lot of software do
express two major flaws that don't help matters: One is
that they're designed to minimize tech support calls.
The other is that they equate lack of tech aptitude
with stupidity. (An expression of geek arrogance. These
things are designed by people with little socialization,
who've spent *way* too much time playing computer
games for children, and who think lunch is a Pepsi and
a candy bar -- adult adolescents.)

There are millions of doctors, lawyers, professors and
scientists using Macs. Intelligent, accomplished people.
And what do they get? Animated cartoon characters that
come out of the bottom bar and then get "vacuumed"
back in, Looney-Tunes-style, with a general design that
prevents people from accessing most of the system. The
whole UI looks like it was designed by a 12 year old girl
who uses little hearts to dot her i's. Just because people
have difficulty learning how to use their computer, that's
no reason to think they're stupid and talk down to them.

* If you want to change a setting in Windows you have to
get through 2 warnings and a button marked "Advanced".
It's probably not covered in the help. If it is, the explanation
uses several unexplained terms, making it useless to the
average reader.

* In Linux you have to look up some arcane command line
and get sidetracked into long discussions about how to
pick a "favorite" shell.

* On a Mac, Lord Jobs has ruled that you don't need to
change the settings. (He told the architect of his
ludicrous spaceship building that the windows shouldn't
open because people just get into trouble when they can
open things.)

If they just took a respectful approach and tried to
write clear directions then a lot more people could get
more out of their computers.


"John" wrote in message
. au...
| One of the early "posters" I think hit the on the head. Many users are not
| interested in PC,s, Os,s, workarounds, obscure cures.
| They just want a PC as a tool that works as intuitively and reliably as
| possible. For that reason may people are happy to fork out
| up to 100% more for a machine that does the same task as a MS product.
Come
| in Apple!!!!!!!. Sure, they are overpriced but they simply work "simply".
| My daughter with the original problem is case in point. She comes with an
| Apple history but her budget now made her go W8 on a HP "all in one"
| instead.
| A week or two later she is still trying to get the thing working instead
of
| her old Apple that just worked out of the box. I,m just guessing there
will
| never be another MS product in that household!
| John
|
|
| "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
| ...
|
| In message , BillW50
| writes:
| In o.uk,
| Andy Burns typed on Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:12:41 +0000:
| []
| I think my decreasing order of preference would be
|
| Win7
| Win8 with Start8
| WinXP
| Win2K
| Win8 without Start8
|
| Mine is like this:
|
| XP SP2
| XP SP3
| Win8 with/without Start8
| Win7
| Win2K
| Linux
| Android
|
| So you prefer SP2 to SP3? I'm curious as to why - unless it's hardware
| requirements (which I concede are somewhat higher for SP3 - I'd
| certainly not try to run SP3 in less than ¾G, probably 1G if Firefox
| might be used, and I think there are processor/graphics requirements
| too). But if you have a non-hardware reason for preferring SP2, I'd be
| interested to see it.
|
| I'm interested that you include Linux and Android too. (Is Android
| actually available as a desktop OS?)
| --
| J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
|
| A lot of people think that being skinny is the happy ending, and its not.
| Being happy is the happy ending. - Sarah Millican, in Radio Times 3-9
March
| 2012
|

On 4/5/14 9:40 PM, John wrote:
One of the early "posters" I think hit the on the head. Many users are not
interested in PC,s, Os,s, workarounds, obscure cures.
They just want a PC as a tool that works as intuitively and reliably as
possible.

That's true. And I remember reading many years ago that computers would
never be popular until they worked as easily as a kitchen appliance.

For that reason may people are happy to fork out
up to 100% more for a machine that does the same task as a MS product. Come
in Apple!!!!!!!.

This spending trait applies to everything, not just computers. Some
people buy Cadillacs, some Ford Fusions. They both do the same task,
get you from A to B. TV's by size, resolution, etc. They all do the
same thing, provide you with entertainment.

So, what's the real difference? None that I can see. People are
willing to pay more if that's what they want, have the money, and
perceive a better value for them in the more expensive product.

Sure, they are overpriced but they simply work "simply".

I really, really hate the "overpriced" comments about anything, without
supporting evidence. I guess we could say Cadillacs are over priced,
Sony TV's are overpriced, and so on.

Just like cars and televisions, the quality of the components in the
products vary. A few years ago, I read some posts arguing about the
cost of various computers. Usually it was started by saying Apples were
"overpriced" or similar comment. Yet, when someone actually sat down,
and specced out a Windows computer using comparable internal components,
the price difference dropped dramatically. Yes, Apples were still more
expensive, but there are things you get from Apple you don't get from
Microsoft and probably Linux. When was the last time you walked into a
Dell store for help? Or an HP store? How many malware issues are there
with Windows compared to OS X?

There's more to making a purchasing decision than just money. My iMac
display is still superior to any Windows display I've seen, with the
possible exception of an AOC monitor I saw in a Staples store a few
years ago. When I went to build my Win 7/8/???? I wanted that AOC
monitor, but it was no longer available. :-(

My daughter with the original problem is case in point. She comes with an
Apple history but her budget now made her go W8 on a HP "all in one"
instead.
A week or two later she is still trying to get the thing working instead of
her old Apple that just worked out of the box. I,m just guessing there will
never be another MS product in that household!

I think many computer oriented folks like us tend to forget that "one
size does not fit all". I've mentioned a friend of mine in posts here
and there that had to buy a Windows computer when her school district
went Windows. She never could figure it out. Unfortunately, her home
was broken into, and due to vigilant neighbors, only the Vista laptop
was taken. Insurance paid full replacement. I talked her into spending
the extra $$ for a Mac laptop. Next think I knew, she was online
telling me how easy the laptop was to use. And I was still sitting here
trying to figure this iMac out! LOL


John


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...

In message , BillW50
writes:
In o.uk,
Andy Burns typed on Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:12:41 +0000:
[]
I think my decreasing order of preference would be

Win7
Win8 with Start8
WinXP
Win2K
Win8 without Start8

Mine is like this:

XP SP2
XP SP3
Win8 with/without Start8
Win7
Win2K
Linux
Android

So you prefer SP2 to SP3? I'm curious as to why - unless it's hardware
requirements (which I concede are somewhat higher for SP3 - I'd
certainly not try to run SP3 in less than ¾G, probably 1G if Firefox
might be used, and I think there are processor/graphics requirements
too). But if you have a non-hardware reason for preferring SP2, I'd be
interested to see it.

I'm interested that you include Linux and Android too. (Is Android
actually available as a desktop OS?)



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

| Usually it was started by saying Apples were
| "overpriced" or similar comment. Yet, when someone actually sat down,
| and specced out a Windows computer using comparable internal components,
| the price difference dropped dramatically. Yes, Apples were still more
| expensive, but there are things you get from Apple you don't get from
| Microsoft and probably Linux. When was the last time you walked into a
| Dell store for help? Or an HP store? How many malware issues are there
| with Windows compared to OS X?
|
| There's more to making a purchasing decision than just money. My iMac
| display is still superior to any Windows display I've seen,.....

I don't think you really have to look far to see that
Apple charges "through the nose". They have no direct
competition. I remember when iMacs first came out.
A friend bought one. He spent a total of $2,700, with
the printer and whatever else he needed to set it up --
for a 1-piece box with no upgradeability other than
the RAM.

That was around the time that Apple stopped installing
floppy drives. I asked AppleSeed friends if that didn't
bother them. I always got the same party line in response:
"Floppies are outdated. Nobody uses them anymore.
Steve Jobs is a genius. He understood that." If Steve
Jobs stole their wallet they'd call him a genius.

Meanwhile, I read an article saying that including a
floppy drive would have cost Apple about $7.50 per box.
Then Microcenter started featuring blue, USB external
floppy drives for Macs. $100. They sold like hotcakes.
Every Mac owner had to have one.

Their new connector design has forced people to
buy new, wildly overpriced cables.

I'm actually using a PC now partly because of Apple
pricing. When I first used a computer it was a Mac.
I shared a friend's AOL account. It was fun. When I
decided to buy a computer myself I went to Microcenter.
"Mac or PC?", asked the clerk. I thought they were just
2 brands. "What are the prices?", I asked. The cheapest
Mac was $2,200. The cheapest PC was an eMachines
for $500. What about software? The area for Windows
software was like a gymnasium. Then there was a small
room for Mac software, all of which cost more than the
Windows version. My decision was made for me.

Many apple fans are not even capable of comparing
comparable components. Remember the snail ads? Apple
was claiming their IBM CPUs could run circles around
Intel CPUs because of their extra cache, even when it
got to where PCs were running 1 GHz CPUs while Mac
CPUs were still down around the 300 MHz range. Finally
even Apple admitted their CPUs were nothing special,
and changed to Intel.

Do a search on the cost of manufacturing iPhones. The
results I find are that the total cost is $200+ while the
retail price is $600+. That's done with virtual slave labor
in China while the income is kept offshore to avoid taxes.

Apple is a sleazeball company, no matter how you look
at it. But I don't mean to single them out. Microsoft has
become one of the biggest companies in the world by
ruthlessly maintaining a monopoly on the grossly overpriced
software of Windows and Office. Pretty much everything
else they do loses money. (I think XBox broke even recently,
but I'm not sure the total cost of XBox since the beginning
has been recouped.)

Even without all the facts and figures, there's a glaring,
basic inconsistency that calls the operations of many tech
companies into question: They're among the top earners
of all companies worldwide. Yet Microsoft just nurses their
software monopoly and Apple makes gadgets. That doesn't
add up. And why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world?
What did he do to deserve such wealth? Last I heard
Microsoft had an $8 billion yearly "research" budget. That's
$100K per year for, say, 60,000 people, if you figure they
somehow spend $2B on materials.

On 4/6/14 7:43 AM, Mayayana wrote:
I think there's a lot to that. Apple is for people who
don't want to think about it. (Or who don't mind paying
a premium price to increase their chances of getting
laid by hanging around at Starbucks pretending to write
term papers.)

I wouldn't have a ghost of a chance at Starbucks! G

I think you're correct about some Apple owners not wanting to think
about it. But I think John's observation in
news://nntp.aioe.org:119/H9WdnQOOkZE...westnet.com.au
is even more accurate, they just want it to work easily! No fuss, no
muss. And from what I see in most of the members in my Mac group, they
would never really understand a Windows computer. There would be lots
of frustration, as it appears to be for John's daughter.

But there are the exceptions, notably the programmers who use the
Terminal for much of their customization of OS X. We have one member
who still codes in machine language!

I think most of us posting in this newsgroup have to face a simple
fact... We are a dieing breed. When we bought our first computers, or
got into the industry, we wanted to know how they worked, how to tweak
them to our liking, etc. But we are not the majority anymore when it
comes to computer purchases.

I think the vast majority want something simple and easy to use. If
not, then why did the iPad start the tablet craze?

And you have to face it, some things are easier on one OS than it its in
others. Screenshots and creating PDF files are far easier in OS X than
Windows.

One thing I think they all could improve on, though,
is the presentation. Microsoft makes control more
available, but discourages people with abstruse tech
talk and warnings. Apple just plain hides things.

But there's the downside to the user control, much easier for the user
to really screw things up. And for many of those "tweaks", you can do
many of them in OS X, but you have to use the Terminal (Command Prompt).
That does a better of protecting the system from the ignorant user.

Linux
distributions are beginning to look a lot like Windows.
("Root? No, root isn't root anymore. You want sudo.
How do you become sudo? Well, if you're qualified to
know you'll figure it out.... What, you want a UI for
that?... What's wrong with command line?... Why do
we have to put up with idiots like you in Linuxville?")

A computer *is* an extremely complex and powerful
machine. It's not easy to make it simple and intuitive.
But I think the major OSs and a lot of software do
express two major flaws that don't help matters: One is
that they're designed to minimize tech support calls.
The other is that they equate lack of tech aptitude
with stupidity. (An expression of geek arrogance. These
things are designed by people with little socialization,
who've spent *way* too much time playing computer
games for children, and who think lunch is a Pepsi and
a candy bar -- adult adolescents.)

There are millions of doctors, lawyers, professors and
scientists using Macs. Intelligent, accomplished people.

Being intelligent and educated does not correlate with being able to
understand and operate a computer with competency. There's a lot of
very talented musicians, artists, doctors, etc. out there, but does that
mean they would be a competent auto mechanic? No one has universal
skills to do everything.

And what do they get? Animated cartoon characters that
come out of the bottom bar and then get "vacuumed"
back in, Looney-Tunes-style, with a general design that
prevents people from accessing most of the system.

By cartoon characters, are you talking about the program icons in the
dock? If so, and you don't like the bouncing, turn it off. It's in the
dock's preferences. Blame the software vendors for the look of the
icons, Apple doesn't make them. What's the practical difference between
the dock and the taskbar with a bunch of pinned programs? You can add
pretty much anything you want to the dock. The default dock let's you
access all your software via that Application Folder, Utilities
(basically the control panel) via the Utilities folder in the
Applications folder or separately if you prefer, downloads via the
download icon, and of course the documents folder (recent documents
anyone?). If you want a document in the dock, create an alias
(shortcut) and put it in the dock.

The
whole UI looks like it was designed by a 12 year old girl
who uses little hearts to dot her i's. Just because people
have difficulty learning how to use their computer, that's
no reason to think they're stupid and talk down to them.

You can say that about tablets too, IMO.

* If you want to change a setting in Windows you have to
get through 2 warnings and a button marked "Advanced".
It's probably not covered in the help. If it is, the explanation
uses several unexplained terms, making it useless to the
average reader.

True.

* In Linux you have to look up some arcane command line
and get sidetracked into long discussions about how to
pick a "favorite" shell.

So... wait... You like Windows over OS X because of control, but
because Linux makes you use command lines to have even more control and
options such a different desktop GUIs, that's not good?

* On a Mac, Lord Jobs has ruled that you don't need to
change the settings. (He told the architect of his
ludicrous spaceship building that the windows shouldn't
open because people just get into trouble when they can
open things.)

I'll admit, you have me totally lost here. LOL

If they just took a respectful approach and tried to
write clear directions then a lot more people could get
more out of their computers.

You can apply this to all things computer these days.

It's too bad so many people are ignorant of computers and OSes. :-(
If they knew more, they would be able to make a better decision as to
what fits them.

snip


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:43:19 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

A computer *is* an extremely complex and powerful
machine. It's not easy to make it simple and intuitive.
But I think the major OSs and a lot of software do
express two major flaws that don't help matters: One is
that they're designed to minimize tech support calls.
The other is that they equate lack of tech aptitude
with stupidity. (An expression of geek arrogance. These
things are designed by people with little socialization,
who've spent *way* too much time playing computer
games for children, and who think lunch is a Pepsi and
a candy bar -- adult adolescents.)

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of
lunch. You'd have been OK if you had said 'Pepsi product' because everyone
knows that lunch includes Mountain Dew. While I'm at it, a salty snack makes
a better companion than a candy bar.

|
| I think you're correct about some Apple owners not wanting to think
| about it. But I think John's observation in
| news://nntp.aioe.org:119/H9WdnQOOkZE...westnet.com.au
| is even more accurate, they just want it to work easily! No fuss, no
| muss.

Yes. The people I've known who switched to Mac
(mainly GenXers) stressed the idea of not needing
to figure out security and AV. I think it wasn't so
much that Windows didn't work for them, but that
they were using Facebook, downloading music, doing
all sorts of online interactive activities and just didn't
want to have to think about security.

| I think the vast majority want something simple and easy to use. If
| not, then why did the iPad start the tablet craze?

Figures I see say that tablets have come about in addition
to PCs, and that many are abandoned after the honeymoon.
They certainly have a place, but I think it's mainly for
mobility rather than ease of use through limitation. That's
the tradeoff, not the feature.

| There are millions of doctors, lawyers, professors and
| scientists using Macs. Intelligent, accomplished people.
|
| Being intelligent and educated does not correlate with being able to
| understand and operate a computer with competency. There's a lot of
| very talented musicians, artists, doctors, etc. out there, but does that
| mean they would be a competent auto mechanic?

That's not what I meant. I just mean that people have
different aptitudes and shouldn't be judged by their experience.
The musician may only be able to handle calling AAA. But
they might also be able to check their oil and change their
air filter if someone explains it to them clearly. If I were
asking them to help me with music I would hope they'd be
intelligent and generous enough to guage what I can
understand rather than just assuming that I won't get it
at all.

| * In Linux you have to look up some arcane command line
| and get sidetracked into long discussions about how to
| pick a "favorite" shell.
|
| So... wait... You like Windows over OS X because of control, but
| because Linux makes you use command lines to have even more control and
| options such a different desktop GUIs, that's not good?
|

What I've always liked about Windows is that one could
get involved to any level. It's not as true as it used to be,
but it's still true to a great extent. After learning how to use
Windows I discovered VBScript. I started writing simple
MsgBox scripts. It was a revelation: I could also affect what
happens on the *other* side of the screen. It was no longer
a locked appliance but instead became an increasingly flexible
tool.

Linux sets a high bar. (I heard a story once that someone
at a talk told Richard Stallman he was having trouble with
Stallman's compiler and Stallman said, "Then write your
own." I can't confirm that story is true, but it doesn't
surprise me.)
Many Linux people want it to be difficult to learn. They like
to feel like magicians with arcane knowledge. Choice of
Desktops is just on the surface. That's fine. But there's no
excuse for having to open a console window to get something
done, post 1995. And there's no excuse for having to dig in
/etc for config files. Those are exactly the designs that Microsoft
uses to prevent anyone but sysadmins and tweakers from being
able to manage the system.

The console window really serves both roles. It allows
Linux fans to feel like they're performing incantations,
"pedal to the metal", and it also intimidates most people.

I saw a discussion on Slashdot yeasterday that was *so*
typical. Someone was asking about a good firewall for
a Linux newcomer that could block outgoing, block
processes, and block IP addresses. A long discussion ensued
about which half-finished IPTables config tools were still
being worked on. Another discussion flared up about whether
someone using Linux has any reason (or even a right) to
block outgoing. There were the typical Windows digs.
As far as I know there isn't a basic firewall on Linux
that vaguely compares to the functionality and usability
of numerous Windows firewalls.

| * On a Mac, Lord Jobs has ruled that you don't need to
| change the settings. (He told the architect of his
| ludicrous spaceship building that the windows shouldn't
| open because people just get into trouble when they can
| open things.)
|
| I'll admit, you have me totally lost here. LOL
|

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/1...-and-openness/

| with stupidity. (An expression of geek arrogance. These
| things are designed by people with little socialization,
| who've spent *way* too much time playing computer
| games for children, and who think lunch is a Pepsi and
| a candy bar -- adult adolescents.)
|
| I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of
| lunch. You'd have been OK if you had said 'Pepsi product' because everyone
| knows that lunch includes Mountain Dew. While I'm at it, a salty snack
makes
| a better companion than a candy bar.
|

Okey doke. We'll have to make sure we've got
chips for you at the next "team" meeting. Just
don't forget to bring your Foosball bat.

On 4/6/14 12:51 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-06 11:59 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
[...]
I think most of us posting in this newsgroup have to face a simple
fact... We are a dieing breed. When we bought our first computers, or
got into the industry, we wanted to know how they worked, how to tweak
them to our liking, etc. But we are not the majority anymore when it
comes to computer purchases. [...]

I think you're right.

Which makes our discussions and occasional mutual head-banging a rather
funny spectator sport. ;-)

LOL

Have a good day,


You too, Wolf.

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 4/6/14 9:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Usually it was started by saying Apples were
| "overpriced" or similar comment. Yet, when someone actually sat down,
| and specced out a Windows computer using comparable internal components,
| the price difference dropped dramatically. Yes, Apples were still more
| expensive, but there are things you get from Apple you don't get from
| Microsoft and probably Linux. When was the last time you walked into a
| Dell store for help? Or an HP store? How many malware issues are there
| with Windows compared to OS X?
|
| There's more to making a purchasing decision than just money. My iMac
| display is still superior to any Windows display I've seen,.....

I don't think you really have to look far to see that
Apple charges "through the nose". They have no direct
competition. I remember when iMacs first came out.
A friend bought one. He spent a total of $2,700, with
the printer and whatever else he needed to set it up --
for a 1-piece box with no upgradeability other than
the RAM.

And there's no real competition for MS either.

That was around the time that Apple stopped installing
floppy drives. I asked AppleSeed friends if that didn't
bother them. I always got the same party line in response:
"Floppies are outdated. Nobody uses them anymore.
Steve Jobs is a genius. He understood that." If Steve
Jobs stole their wallet they'd call him a genius.

But, they were ahead of everybody, hard to even buy a floppy now from
what I hear.

Meanwhile, I read an article saying that including a
floppy drive would have cost Apple about $7.50 per box.
Then Microcenter started featuring blue, USB external
floppy drives for Macs. $100. They sold like hotcakes.
Every Mac owner had to have one.

Their new connector design has forced people to
buy new, wildly overpriced cables.

Which connector are you talking about?

I'm actually using a PC now partly because of Apple
pricing. When I first used a computer it was a Mac.
I shared a friend's AOL account. It was fun. When I
decided to buy a computer myself I went to Microcenter.
"Mac or PC?", asked the clerk. I thought they were just
2 brands. "What are the prices?", I asked. The cheapest
Mac was $2,200. The cheapest PC was an eMachines
for $500. What about software? The area for Windows
software was like a gymnasium. Then there was a small
room for Mac software, all of which cost more than the
Windows version. My decision was made for me.

Many apple fans are not even capable of comparing
comparable components.

I have to say, the same observation would apply to most computer users
these days. Linux users possibly being a bit of an exception.

Remember the snail ads? Apple
was claiming their IBM CPUs could run circles around
Intel CPUs because of their extra cache, even when it
got to where PCs were running 1 GHz CPUs while Mac
CPUs were still down around the 300 MHz range. Finally
even Apple admitted their CPUs were nothing special,
and changed to Intel.

I honestly don't remember seeing those ads.

Do a search on the cost of manufacturing iPhones. The
results I find are that the total cost is $200+ while the
retail price is $600+. That's done with virtual slave labor
in China while the income is kept offshore to avoid taxes.

They aren't the only company that does that. And in a free market
system, you charge what people are willing to pay.

Apple is a sleazeball company, no matter how you look
at it. But I don't mean to single them out. Microsoft has
become one of the biggest companies in the world by
ruthlessly maintaining a monopoly on the grossly overpriced
software of Windows and Office. Pretty much everything
else they do loses money. (I think XBox broke even recently,
but I'm not sure the total cost of XBox since the beginning
has been recouped.)

Even without all the facts and figures, there's a glaring,
basic inconsistency that calls the operations of many tech
companies into question: They're among the top earners
of all companies worldwide. Yet Microsoft just nurses their
software monopoly and Apple makes gadgets. That doesn't
add up. And why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world?
What did he do to deserve such wealth? Last I heard
Microsoft had an $8 billion yearly "research" budget. That's
$100K per year for, say, 60,000 people, if you figure they
somehow spend $2B on materials.

This is where the lack of competition comes into play. Not much of a
need to produce better products if there's no competition. As you said,
things like XBox, Windows phones, Windows tablets, don't seem to do so
well when there's competition.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Ken Springer wrote, On 4/6/2014 9:47 PM:


This is where the lack of competition comes into play. Not much of a
need to produce better products if there's no competition. As you said,
things like XBox, Windows phones, Windows tablets, don't seem to do so
well when there's competition.



Xbox is actually the bright spot on the alternative MSFT devices
- while not equivalent to PS4 (cumulative to date total) the XB1 is
still selling units (most recently reported) over 100,000 per week. In
2013, over 3 million XB1's were sold (over 4 mil cumulative to date) and
more than PS4 in 2013.
- just like the pc vs tablet, desktop vs. modern UI. Ford vs.
Chevrolet...favorites exist and no amount of discussion from the peanut
gallery will ever substantiate which is better or worse


Phones have an uphill struggle to gain market share.
- one of the strangest decisions MSFT did was provide POP3 access on
Windows Phones but not on Win8. Granted the preference for syncability
(email, contacts, calendar) has always been the designed plan since 2006
(for all MSFT email clients including the phone)....in fact the
underlying code for Win8 is based more on their phone than on existing
email clients for obvious reasons (one of which - phone code is smaller
and easier to deploy across smart devices)

Tablets likewise have a challenge and MSFT is attempting to leverage the
'computing' ability vs. competition on their devices (Office 365 on
Surface RT ARM architecture and installable software (equivalent to
desktop o/s) on Surface Pro Intel architecture. It also appears that to
avoid inventory build up, the supply of Surface devices is being
controlled very carefully to limit expense without recievable cash flow.



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-06 11:53 PM, ...winston wrote:
[...]
It also appears that to avoid inventory build up, the supply of
Surface devices is being controlled very carefully to limit expense
without recievable cash flow.

Including the accessories. The Type Cover and the Dock are on back
order. I'm getting seriously frustrated about that. We should be able
to buy Surface with these accessories bundled.

Even if only you and two other people might want such a bundle? Would you
buy it that way if it tripled the cost of your Surface? ;-D
--
best regards,

Neil

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-07 11:27 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-06 11:53 PM, ...winston wrote:
[...]
It also appears that to avoid inventory build up, the supply of
Surface devices is being controlled very carefully to limit expense
without recievable cash flow.

Including the accessories. The Type Cover and the Dock are on back
order. I'm getting seriously frustrated about that. We should be
able to buy Surface with these accessories bundled.

Even if only you and two other people might want such a bundle?
Would you buy it that way if it tripled the cost of your Surface?
;-D

I think that's a retailer decision, but maybe not. Eg, our "local"
Best Buy (two hours away from here) had both on back order in
February, which tells you there was more demand for them than they
anticipated. The
Source is promising to deliver my order on or after April 12th, seems
they too underestimated the demand. Online, only TigerDirect had some
covers in stock.

Demand is inversely related to price while price is directly related to the
cost of manufacture which has an inverse relationship to the production
volume. So, you could get your cover fast if you want to pay more for it (I
suspect you could have had it by now, if price was no object), and you could
get it bundled with the Surface if you are willing to wait long enough.

Or else MS underestimated, in which case that's a fail, maybe a major
one, I bought because it's a nice tablet, and a portable PC.

According to some sources, MS originally *overestimated* demand, and as a
result had to scale back production, and that could account for the delay
you're experiencing.
--
best regards,

Neil