Wow you just wasted your time. I'll be nice and spare you the time of having to read a long, ranting, repetitive, rambling, inaccurate post.
(a) Steve Jobs is not Apple. They are two separate entities. And here: https://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071020/news_1b20apple.html
With the emphasis on "Mac shipments rose 37 percent, with Apple posting the fastest growth among the top five PC makers."
Yes, but read what I said in that 2005 post and repeated though. IF it had doubled, which is more than 37% you'll find, it still would be peanuts...and thus, all you confirmed is what I said, it is still peanuts.
So no, that's not evidence, it's backing what I said. Get over it, it doesn't matter. I've managed to use linux for over a decade and can still accept that, on the desktop, it's peanuts. It's just plain daft to be arguing otherwise.
As for Steve Jobs not being Apple...he's the only thing they've got worth shouting about...and that's because of ipods et al, not macs.
And Macs were not turned into PC's, otherwise they would be.....PC's. Apple simply allowed customers to install Windows on their Macs.
They are and were...as your own story showed. But not because of windows. Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said [quite rightly] not to mistake software and hardware. Now you talk about 'allowing windows' in response to someone talking about how the apple HARDWARE has turned into pc HARDWARE. D'oh. At the same time I also mentioned they've switched to unix too, which again has nothing to do with *allowing* anyone to install windows. So your response is just a red herring.
Running windows is just a side effect of making it into a PC. A better notion, if you want to learn a bit about software and OSes, would be if you'd argued that Microsoft allowed it - [that would have been incorrect of course, but at least it would have made some logical sense]
Because if Macs weren't PCs then Apple wouldn't need to allow, it would be MS that would have to do stuff to allow it. i.e What they did to their applications to get them to run on Mac hardware when Macs really weren't PCs, many years ago - port them to the Mac.
Now MS didn't have to of course. Geddit? It's because it's already a PC. If it had run linux you'd have had a better argument, because linux does run on a plethora of different architectures and hardware whereas Windows XP runs on PCs.
Besides, here you see :-
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4816520.stmfar from being *allowed*, initially it was done irrespective [permitted later perhaps but you see their permission or whatever you think happened, wasn't needed] and it ran with just changes to installation stuff, to cater for different boot up.
So far now, my dear confused friend, I think I will continue around the track once more on my high horse. Would you like a lift?
It looks more like an ass than a horse from here
Especially when you start linking to stories about Macs being better at running windows xp because of photoshop benchmarks. Whilst missing far more apt facts like the graphics chip not being capable of being fully utilised under xp at that time - and the last paragraph too.
At best you could've [but failed to] argue that the article showed a specific Apple made PC was quicker than some other manufs PCs on a specific benchmark. This is a better argument than claiming it isn't a PC. But even so, had you made a valid argument, it's not surprising in the PC world. PC magazines run comparisons against different PCs month in and month out. The manuf places continually change, especially between different machine types and price points - and a PC with a graphics chip you can't use wouldn't be likely to score highly.
If you ignored history and accepted the benchmarks on face value, if you bought an apple pc and wanted to run windows the single thing you wouldn't be doing that for is to run photoshop.
It was largely the failure of Apple for years [before they started to churn out Intel PCs] they'd publish fake photoshop benchmarks often via fanboy sites that were quickly dismissed for the deceit they often were. But yes, they sold macs to the tiny percentage of folks who need and use photoshop in anger - the rest of the world used different apps and PCs [or they edit one photo a year with their pirated copy and it doesn't matter a jot if some filters run a few %age points quicker or slower]
Unix / linux have the advantage that rather than being cobbled to use the internet [like windows], the internet was cobbled together for them and they have apps. Now Jobs has to take from both - he wants PCs that can run applications quickly - multicore and all that jazz, he wants some apps, and he needs them to connect to the internet, rather than connect via whatever apple networking crud [like windows networking crud] that failed miserably alongside the internet.
So he makes Macs just that - turns them into Intel / unix boxes. He's not daft, but in the process he did make pretty much every apple fanboy comment from threads like these, years ago, look like the nonsense it was. If you don't believe that, go and read their comments about Intel Chips, Networking and IDE and so on and so on, instead of making more of them now
That's pretty much what I said in 2005, together with other stuff - and it's still apt today. If you had a valid reason or argument for it not to be, you probably would have said it, rather than just saying I was wrong with no other comment. You certainly haven't added anything yet to show why I was wrong in 2005 by cutting and pasting my more recent post either, you just went off with other FUD.
Nevertheless it is ironic that the photoshop benchmark that mac fanboys have relied on for years to diss windows / pc over Mac / ppc is now being used by a fanboy to show photoshop on windows xp is better
Perhaps not their intent
Whatever, that alone kills the Mac stone dead by their own hand. Long live the Apple PC I guess, but it's a tough market - the fact that most of us have PCs doesn't lend itself to us buying apple's PCs, no more than we buy Dell / HP or whatever else.
Topic: Windows WT?!