Hi, Tim.
Rather than labelling your arguments with emotionally-laden terms
such as "archaic" or "misinformed", let me deal with them one by one
on their merits, if I may. As an aside, it is astonishing to me that
people generally are so defensive about the technology they use.
Frankly, I hate all computers I use to about an equal extent, the day
I find something better is the day I upgrade to it. I have no interest
in defending my technological choices, as the name implies, they're my
technological choices, made by me and for me. The whole point of my
participation in this thread is to try to show that the cost of a Mac,
and the unit's setup more generally, makes it a machine that isn't as
adaptable as the units running Windows/Linux.
Now, you write
• Yes, you can purchase a Mac Desktop for $2500, which is a pretty
awesome machine, but you also can purchase a MacMini desktop for just
over $500 or an
iMac for about $1300, both quite powerful desktop machines. You can
upgrade most of these machines from the basic unit to quite a powerful
one. I can
go to Walmart and purchase a Surround-Sound Audio system for $200 or I
can go somewhere else and purchase a Harman Kardon system for $1500.
The Walmart
system will do the job, won't sound quite as nice and won't last as
long, but will do the job. You get what you pay for.
What you cannot do, however, is purchase a Mac for $250-300. You can
purchase such a computer running Windows. Similarly, you cannot
purchase a Mac for $50. You can purchase such a computer running
Linux. I did not say, and don't think, that Macs cannot be found at
many price points. My point is simply that machines running other
operating systems can be found at many more price points, and at many
more power levels, and thus can be used in many more circumstances.
You raise the analogy of a sound system. With respect, the analogy
seems to prove my own point. There are certain circumstances where
what I want is a very cheap sound system from Walmart. Consider a
vacation house, or a child's room, or a moving RV/boat, and so on. The
problem I am pointing out here is that buying even the lowest-end new
Mac is like buying a high-end sound system for these places. It's
overkill. Sometimes, because of the limitations on the Mac line,
buying even the highest-end Mac is underkill, you want to spend your
money differently on different components. This is my whole point,
that Macs simply are not so adaptable as other machines.
You write
• You obviously haven't carried or properly used a MacBook, MacBook
Air or MacBook Pro. They are considered some of the lightest and
thinnest laptops
on the market.
You are quite right, my experience has been with a Mac Mini, rather
than the Mac laptops. However, my laptop weighs less than a pound
(around 400 G) and has a 5 inch screen. Now, I am by no means saying
that everyone should use a laptop that I use. The small size requires
tradeoffs. My point, in case I haven't made you sick of it by now, is
that I can get a laptop with a 5 inch screen and which weighs less
than a pound because Windows/Linux is adaptable, the Mac adapts over a
narrower range. My laptop runs Windows at the moment, but can run
Linux if I want it. Further, you did not address my argument
concerning damage/theft. If my $300 netbook has coffee spilled all
over it, then I'm out $300. If my $1000 Mac laptop is similarly
drenched, I'm out a much larger amount. Again, the circumstances make
it useful for me to compute on a lower end machine. Apple has no such
machine, and thus their machines are not as adaptable as those running
other units.
You write
I can also remotely connect to my Desktop at home using these Macs.
This has nothing to do with this thread, so I will, if I may, ask
questions about this on another thread.
You write
• I'm not sure where your concept of a narrow adaptability comes from.
I have five Macs in my home, manage over 400 Macs at work and it
would be entirely
stupid to have that much money invested in something that does not
meet the needs of the many users I support. These are primarily
sighted users, although
we also have numerous users with special needs who find the
accessibility of the Mac platform superior to Windows on the PC.
With respect, I don't see why you limit your argument to the
computers you use and support. Why not mention the several million Mac
systems out there? The fact that you know of 500 systems and that
there are many Mac OS machines out there does not challenge what I'm
trying to say at all. All the systems may well be within the range of
what the Mac is designed for. My point is that the range is narrower,
usually a good deal narrower, than that which Windows/Linux is
designed for. As for where my idea of lack of adaptability comes from
in the Mac, I have tried to show that throughout this message.
You write
• I also taught end-user skills both on the Mac and Windows for years.
The skill-sets that the end-user develops by using either platform
are totally
transferable if the end-user has a desire to do so.
Are you speaking of skills using the assistive technology, or skills
generally? If you mean the general skills, I have no evidence on that
statement one way or the other. I suspect, however, that you are
correct. If you are speaking of skills with assistive technology, I
would respectfully disagree, both from my own experience with the Mac
and from what I have heard on the list here. Let's discount my own
experience, you will argue that I had no desire to transfer to the Mac
and I cannot prove my desires. I have, however, heard many people hear
say something like "if you treat the Mac with VoiceOver like a Windows
computer with Jaws, you will have a hard time". Even some of those who
are very pleased with their Mac considered giving it up when learning
it. My own experience, which you can feel free to ignore, backs this
up. I would be very interested in seeing how easily, quantified as a
matter of time, people can learn to move from a Windows screen access
package to one on the Mac. I would also be interested in the other way
around.
You write
• Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that most
screenreader venders expect you to purchase multiple licenses if
you're using it on multiple
computers. Many people don't actually purchase the multiple copies,
but that is the expectation and, in many cases, the legal
responsibility of the end-user.
I am sorry to contradict you, but what you say above seems to be
inaccurate. I don't know about most screen reader vendors, but do know
about Jaws because I am using it to type this to you and I can pull up
the EULA. It says
The Licensee may install and use the program on more than one machine,
but only one machine may be used at a time.
Unless I am corrected by a court's interpretation, I interpret that
as meaning that I can install the program on fifty computers if I
want, and simply move from one to another. There is no numerical
limitation on the number of machines which I can install it on, and
unless I somehow grow an extra pair of hands, I am not worried by the
limitation on using the program on more than one machine at a single
time. With the Mac, the price premium, as well as the screen reader,
comes with the machine.
You write
• If I read Brandt's post correctly, his primary factor for his
decision is financial. He still is interested in the MacOS, and that
is why he is considering
the Hac-intosh route, so slamming the Mac in the manner you have is
somewhat uncalled for.
I consider that this is an excellent reason to slam the Mac, as you
put it or, more accurately, to slam apple. Brandt, and others, have
the choice, if they want to use OSX, of being forced into Apple's
narrow range (For Brandt, financial range, for others, component or
power range), or they can accept the EULA and proceed to violate it.
This is not a good choice, and it is imposed upon them by Apple's lack
of adaptability and of its view that it, and not the consumer, should
decide what hardware is used.
You write
• If I break your post down to the nitty-gritty, you simply don't wish
to own a Mac.
I really don't see what my desires have to do with anything, but I'm
happy to talk about them. I wish I could switch to a Mac, but it
doesn't meet my needs, and it doesn't meet my needs because, among
other things, it is not as adaptable as Windows and Linux. The lack of
adaptability is not a matter of my desires, it is something I see and
has nothing to do with me personally. I don't know what misinformation
you think I have put out there, but if I have written any, it was not
intentional, and I would be grateful to be corrected. I hope this has
clarified what I am trying to say.
Aman
On 4/30/11, Tim Kilburn <kilbu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hi Aman,
>
> Interesting yet uninformed. Even without you admitting it, I would guess
> from your post that you don't use a Mac and follow the mainstream and
> archaic views of many PC users with respect to the usability and
> adaptability of the Macintosh platform. Your price comparisons are
> exaggerated and much of your arguments are flawed due to misinformation.
>
> • Yes, you can purchase a Mac Desktop for $2500, which is a pretty awesome
> machine, but you also can purchase a MacMini desktop for just over $500 or
> an iMac for about $1300, both quite powerful desktop machines. You can
> upgrade most of these machines from the basic unit to quite a powerful one.
> I can go to Walmart and purchase a Surround-Sound Audio system for $200 or I
> can go somewhere else and purchase a Harman Kardon system for $1500. The
> Walmart system will do the job, won't sound quite as nice and won't last as
> long, but will do the job. You get what you pay for. There are exceptions
> to that rule but holds true in most situations.
>
> • You obviously haven't carried or properly used a MacBook, MacBook Air or
> MacBook Pro. They are considered some of the lightest and thinnest laptops
> on the market. I can also remotely connect to my Desktop at home using
> these Macs.
>
> • I'm not sure where your concept of a narrow adaptability comes from. I
> have five Macs in my home, manage over 400 Macs at work and it would be
> entirely stupid to have that much money invested in something that does not
> meet the needs of the many users I support. These are primarily sighted
> users, although we also have numerous users with special needs who find the
> accessibility of the Mac platform superior to Windows on the PC. In fact,
> we've been using Macs for over 20 years and have no interest in moving to
> the PC world. Your arguments appear to me to stem from an age old stigma
> that many hardcore PC users hold, these arguments are out-of-date.
>
> • I also taught end-user skills both on the Mac and Windows for years. The
> skill-sets that the end-user develops by using either platform are totally
> transferrable if the end-user has a desire to do so.
>
> • Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that most screenreader
> venders expect you to purchase multiple licenses if you're using it on
> multiple computers. Many people don't actually purchase the multiple
> copies, but that is the expectation and, in many cases, the legal
> responsibility of the end-user.
>
> • If I read Brandt's post correctly, his primary factor for his decision is
> financial. He still is interested in the MacOS, and that is why he is
> considering the Hac-intosh route, so slamming the Mac in the manner you have
> is somewhat uncalled for.
>
> • If I break your post down to the nitty-gritty, you simply don't wish to
> own a Mac. In fact, that's totally OK and totally your choice. If your
> circumstances result in you preferring a PC with Windows, then so be it.
> Others may feel that the Mac better suits their purposes. It is an
> individual choice that each of us can make given accurate information. Take
> all the factors that are important to you and make your own informed
> decision.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Later...
>
> On 2011-04-29, at 8:34 PM, Aman Singer wrote:
>
>> Hi, Carolyn and all.
>> I do not use a Mac for two reasons. The first, and most important,
>> has nothing to do with this thread, but a second, and almost equally
>> important reason is one which Carolyn's message below hints at.
>> Carolyn writes
>> The Mac is a totally different system, and built to some stringent
>> specifications. You don't see any Macs for $300 as you do for PC
>> machines. And there's
>> a good reason. They're worth more.
>>
>> I think they are worth more. That's not to say that they're worth
>> what is being charged for them, but if you're saying that a Mac is
>> worth more than most netbooks, I absolutely agree. The problem with
>> Apple is, though, that they don't realize that technology needs to be
>> adaptable to be taken up by a large number of people. I want a very
>> good desktop and an adequate laptop. That's because I want to carry my
>> laptop around with me everywhere. I want it light and I don't want to
>> worry about damaging it, losing it, etc. I can use my powerful desktop
>> remotely and everything works well. A $300 netbook is just the thing
>> for me. No Mac is. The wonderful thing about both Windows and Linux is
>> that they are so adaptable. Your $250 netbook runs Windows, and your
>> $1000 laptop runs Windows, and your $2500 desktop runs Windows. Your
>> plug PC costing $50 runs Linux and your $500 laptop Runs Linux and
>> your $2500 desktop runs Linux. Obviously, I could say more, but I'm
>> speaking strictly as a consumer. Anyhow, this is where Apple fails.
>> Their products are adaptable over a narrow range. For many
>> circumstances, what you want is simply something that will do the job
>> cheaply and reasonably, and that usually isn't a Mac. Sometimes you
>> want the fastest/best components on the market and here, again, Apple
>> fails because of its stringency. For example, SSDs were available for
>> other computers for nearly a year before they were available for the
>> Mac. I think what Brant is pointing out here isn't that the Mac is too
>> expensive for what you get, though that may well be true, but is too
>> rigidly expensive for certain users, and too rigidly cheap for others.
>> The fact that he finds the prices high is just a symptom, the disease,
>> if I may be so fanciful, is that a Mac machine doesn't adapt to his
>> situation. If you want the very high-end or the somewhat/very low-end,
>> you don't want a new Mac. If you want to spread your money
>> differently, spending more on certain components and less on others,
>> you don't want a Mac at all. Of course, that also means that your
>> skill set on a Mac, and this is particularly as an AT user, isn't as
>> useful because it isn't used on as many devices and at as many
>> locations.
>> Now, you may argue that all of the above is well and good for the
>> ordinary user but that it doesn't apply to the blind user because of
>> the cost of screen readers and other at. The cost savings, though, on
>> AT, have been somewhat exaggerated, in my view. They apply most
>> obviously to a person who has never bought a screen reader or other AT
>> before, and who wants something a bit more complicated than NVDA. This
>> person saves money, and gets capability, with the Mac. Others don't
>> save money quickly, don't save it at all, or take a cut in capability
>> when they buy a Mac. An example of where the financial savings take
>> quite a while to kick in is where people have already purchased a
>> screen reader, Say Jaws or Window Eyes, and are purchasing a Mac
>> rather than purchasing an SMA. Depending on the cost of the Mac and
>> the SMA, their savings may not kick in for anywhere from 2-5 years.
>> Again, people who want multiple computers, even if it is two machines,
>> can, because they need only purchase the screen reader once, end up
>> spending less on the Windows option over all. The more computers you
>> have, the more the cost of a screen reader purchase is wiped out by
>> cheaper hardware. Again, people who run Windows for any reason do not
>> save money except possibly for upgrade costs in their screen reader.
>> Again, people who want fairly simple computing can buy a netbook, use
>> NVDA, and save large amounts of money compared to those who buy a Mac.
>> My point, as if I haven't belaboured it enough, is that the Mac is not
>> adaptable in the same way the PC is, and that what I hear from those
>> who say that "the Mac costs more because it's better than Windows
>> Machines", ignores the further question "Why should I care if I don't
>> need to pay for a better machine?".
>> Note that where Apple has been really successful, they have brought
>> out devices which either push forward a category in its infancy (the
>> iPad and iPod), or fit into a fairly narrow category (iPhone). They
>> haven't been general purpose, like PCs are.
>> I should say that I know about, but completely ignore, the cool/other
>> emotional factors in buying any computer. I understand that people buy
>> the Mac because they feel that they're supporting accessibility, or
>> that buying mainstream technology rather than specialized access
>> technology is somehow important/beneficial, or that they like Apple's
>> design philosophy, or that their friends have Macs, and so on. I
>> acknowledge that these are reasons for some people, they're just not
>> reasons for me. I am not emotionally invested in any platform or
>> computer, a computer is a tool, and the only questions that matters to
>> me is what can it do and how much does it cost? It seems to me that
>> the Mac is still on the high-cost end of the curve, and that its
>> capabilities do not justify the premium charged by Apple which, as I
>> understand Brandt, is what he is saying.
>> Aman
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/29/11, carolyn Haas <chaas0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Brandt:
>>> Couldn't disagree with this point of view more. First you're comparing
>>> Apples and raspberries.:)
>>> The Mac is a totally different system, and built to some stringent
>>> specifications. You don't see any Macs for $300 as you do for PC
>>> machines.
>>> And there's a good reason. They're worth more.
>>> Secondly: you're buying mainstream technology, and not having to fork
>>> out
>>> the price of a second machine just to get it to talk. Voiceover is built
>>> into the system, not as an adaptation of the system.
>>> As such, Vo is intended to give the VI Mac user a more accurate picture
>>> of
>>> the screen.
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, even at $299, if docuscan works as well as we're hoping it does,
>>> it's still a third of the price of your krzweil or openbook programs.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I believe when you buy a Mac, you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>>
>>> Carolyn
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:33 AM, brandt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, $299 is a fair bit of money, but how many actually went and bought
>>>> open Book or something similar back when ever for 3 ore 4 times more? My
>>>> biggest complaint is not the cost of software but the ridiculous prices
>>>> of
>>>> Mac computers. I can and probably will go the Hakintosh route just
>>>> because
>>>> of that.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>> Brandt Steenkamp
>>>>
>>>> If you like country, oldies and the occasional modern track, you can
>>>> tune
>>>> in to my show, "an Eclectic mess" every Wednesday afternoon at 3 PM UTC
>>>> by
>>>> going to www.TheGlobalVoice.info
>>>>
>>>> Contact me:
>>>>
>>>> Skype: brandt.steenkamp007
>>>> MSN: brandt...@live.com
>>>> Google talk/AIM: brandt.steenk...@gmail.com
>>>> Twitter @brandtsteenkamp
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: E.J. Zufelt
>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:23 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: For those who can actually afford this, DocuScan Plus is
>>>> now
>>>> on the mac app store.
>>>>
>>>> I know nothing at all about this app. But, I suspect that a significant
>>>> portion of the cost is related to licencing a OCR SDK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everett Zufelt
>>>> http://zufelt.ca
>>>>
>>>> Follow me on Twitter
>>>> http://twitter.com/ezufelt
>>>>
>>>> View my LinkedIn Profile
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-04-28, at 10:05 PM, Matthew Campbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Listers.
>>>>> DocuScan is now mac compatible and can be found on the mac app store.
>>>>> Don't get too excited though, unless you have $299.00 to burn on it.
>>>>> Hope this actually benefits someone.
>>>>> the Infuriated Matt Campbell.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups
>>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group
>>>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>
>
> Tim Kilburn
> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
