NintendoLand

Why does it matter where the definition comes from? Are you trying to prove a point?
An all-in-one is a computer where all the major components (including the LCD panel and speakers) are integrated into the one unit. The exceptions would of course be the traditional input peripherals (mouse and keyboard).


They don't really have a market? That's nonsense.


Programming is difficult on them? I've only ever programmed at home on Macs. I've done OpenGL, Flash, C and C++ in OS X and DirectX, OpenGl, XNA (C#) and Flash in Windows booted on my Mac. Also, I've been playing PC and OS X games on Macs for over three years.


Actually it makes a lot of sense. Apple has very little to gain in a market that's already divided among vmware, Parallels and Wine.
I think this point is nonsense actually. Another "issue is compatibility"? When you can easily and legally install Windows on the Mac and run it through Parallels or dual-boot that point is immediately moot. I can't run OS X apps in Windows; does that mean all PCs have a definite compatibility problem?


OS X is a certified Unix 03 operating system.


Not if you're using the wrong definition, you can't, no. :/
Even using your somewhat mystifying definition, your argument breaks down when a number of your points are rendered invalid.


I don't understand how people can actively dislike the Mac App store. You have absolutely zero obligation to use it. You can still download, buy and install third party apps as you please.
It's nice to be able to search for apps in one place, not have to worry about entering payment details and easily keep your apps all up to date through one interface, though.


No, they make Mac Minis, iMacs and Mac Pros which are all desktop computers.

Oh yeah (knows nothing about macs) I never seem to see those advertised though, I think the "face" of Macs are still the all-in-ones.

That's because it's a complete solution. When you show an iMac, you're showing both the machine and the operating system displayed on its built-in LCD. With a Mac Mini or Mac Pro (like any other standard desktop), you have to have a screen attached.
There's also the fact that a Mac Pro is aimed solely at professional users so you're unlikely to run into adverts for it.

This came from me not knowing what the term meant, actually. I know of people who define it as more of an, "it does everything" thing. I guess I was wrong about that, but anyways, I'd still like to continue this debate, ignoring this. Sorry about that.


You linked a very specific datum there. Overall, Macs get around 6-10% of total computer users, at least from this sample. Some go higher, one even up to 27%, and some go below 4%. Either way, it's a pretty small amount. Also, doesn't talking only about expensive computers in your argument kinda reinforce my rich kids only argument?


Well firstly what I noticed is the whole, "windows on my mac" thing. If you did it on a VM or separate partition you did it on Windows, really. Anyways, I had lots of trouble finding an IDE for my laptop for C++, and I did find one eventually, it's called Eclipse, but it comes with no compiler or debugger for some reason. Also, Java is really weird with Macs. Apple for some reason controls all Java-related releases on os x and they seem to be somewhat stripped down. It's also much more difficult to use than on other operating systems, like Windows.


Well, for one, I don't think Wine should even be here on your comparison list, at least with OS X. All mac versions of WINE are either incomplete and halted, or buggy, which is silly. There is something like it though, but the name currently escapes me. Either way it's like WINE but it costs money. I've used it before, and I guess it's okay, but I found it a little confusing to navigate.


If you're installing Windows on a Mac through anything (not parallels, it costs money), you need to buy a Windows install disc, which is definitely not free. I think that Apple would experience a massive increase in Mac sales if they put out a commercial with something along the lines of, "It does Windows." And with what you say about running mac apps on PC's, the issue of compatibility arises from experience, not possibility.

I've never needed to run a Mac app on my Windows desktop, and I don't think many other people do either. If you just look at WINE, you'll see a huge amount of effort going in, at least on Linux, to avoid an issue that many people have experienced. People who make software, when they release a Mac version, will likely have a Windows version either already out or on the way, other than for applications produced by Apple, or a few others, and these are rarely things that would be useful to one who does not use a Mac in the first place.


Yeah, I know. I just think it's silly that this is their best possible plan for an executable format.


As I stated, it seems to represent the coming of a change in the foundation non-mobile computing, and one which I think is somewhat silly considering how easy the internet is to use anyway. It also seems to promote the buying of software, rather than the production and use of that software, but that's another issue entirely.

No, because this news article doesn't say that Apple only sells to rich kids which is a facetious argument to make anyway. Apple aren't interested in targeting the sections of the market which are wafer-thin in terms of profit.


I did it on a Mac. Hasn't stopped me using C, C++, OpenGL, Flash (ActionScript), and Lingo in OS X anyway. It has just widened my options.


Actually, I started off programming with Java on my Mac and have no problem. Macs also ship with XCode which you can use to program C++. You're fabricating issues here.


That's just simply wrong. OS X is no harder to use.


Parallels and vmware aren't buggy and they're more complete packages than WINE.


Completely irrelevant. What do I do when I want to run OS X legally on a PC? You're arguing about compatibility.


A few others? There are lots of Mac-only developers who produce great OS X-only applications. Your poor point was that Mac can't run Windows applications but it can through a variety of solutions. The same can't be said the other way around.


Honestly, you're splitting hairs here. If you have an issue with it, don't use it. Developers are entering into it because it's good for them and it's good for the consumer.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but how is apple over pricing their items a serious topic? but for my opinion on it anyway, i had no idea that apple made computers so over priced! of course they could just be cheap and i don't know it (i have no idea what a normal PC costs). i have no use for a mac anyway, but if i got a laptop from them in a contest or something i might keep it, but I'd probably sell it (i like my IBM laptop with xp the way it is).
Edit: angry sun, you said that the iPod is unmatched with other mp3 players? If your talking about the Ipod classic, Ipod touch, or iPod shuffle, my mp3 player is atleast 5 years old, possibly more, but i like that it has FM radio in it. If your talking about the iPod nano or all iPods, sorry i wasted the time of you and my writing this. i do want an iPod touch though...