I would have severe reservations about “workers being more efficient
on Macs.” First, I note the word efficient. Generally, one thinks
about workers being more productive, not more efficient.
And, I need to point out for about the 10^th time on this list that I
am a relatively fast typist. (My last typing test on a machine I had
never used before, using a standard script on a keyboard I had never
used before, without any warm-up, was 73 words per minute with zero
errors. I should have done better: I’ve been measured by others at 88
words per minute after corrections.
As any fast typist knows, Macs are for slow-typing idiots or people
who want to seem cool and make bad videos with bundled software. One
needs to use the mouse (still! More than 20 years later) to do some
common typing tasks, which severely cuts down speed, and thereby,
productivity. In many cases, there is only one badly-thought out way
to do common tasks.
With Windows – from version 1.0, by the way – there were at least two,
and in many cases, three ways to perform common tasks like entering a
soft carriage return. With Windows 3.0, there were three ways to
perform common tasks.
Try this task. Start to type a sentence on the Mac. Then, underline
the last word you typed before moving on to the next word. I can do
that on a PC with two separate key combinations. (It\s cheating to
use Microsoft Word on the Mac for this: I\m talking about a feature
built into PCs.) My fingers never leave the alphabetic keys. Last
time I tried a Mac, I could only do this by taking my fingers off the
keys and attacking the mouse twice.
Try another not-so-common task. Enter a keycode (like that for ascii
129) into a Mac. With a PC, it’s five keys. It was four before they
embraced Unicode.
I frankly don’t care what type of computer people use (although I
refuse to use emacs on any computer). I only care that they are happy
with their choice, and to the extent I need to interface to their
computer, I do nothing other than copy files. And, I lose not a bit
of content in the process. In the last 16 years, Macs have finally
been able to do this.
Most of the time.
If I were working on an hourly basis as a typist, I wouldn’t have any
problem with a Mac. If I were being paid by the job or by the unit
completed, I’d only use a PC.
So, you don’t understand, Dave that time is money is only half the
phrase, and that the other half is money is time?
Please, continue to convince yourself that in laptops Macs are
superior. I will only agree that their prices are 3x what a
run-of-the mill laptop costs.
Don’t you just love the emperor’s new clothes?
John Willkie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Dave Bittner
*Sent:* Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:06 PM
*To:* opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [opendtv] Re: News: Macintosh and iPod Drive Apple
On May 6, 2007, at Sunday, May 6, 20072:33 AM, John Willkie wrote:
However, the argument tends to fall apart, since Macs are found most
often in environments where “time has no value” like at home. In
environments where time has money, like business, Macs have only
significant penetration in a few niches.
Oh come on, John. PCs don't dominate businesses because "time is
money", they dominate because they've been historically cheaper to
buy, and that's what matters to bean-counters. Study after study has
shown that workers are more efficient on Macs, and that Macs last
longer without needing upgrades, making them a better value in the
long run. But bean-counters rarely care about the long run; they want
to impress the boss with how much money they saved this quarter.
There is a noticeable shift occurring, most visibly with laptops.
Superior resistance to spyware, attractive industrial design,
effective marketing (including the iPod family connection) and an
overall "coolness" factor are making more and more people take a
serious look at Macs.
