![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
You don't give up much of anything, really. It's pretty easy to run Windows on a Mac. It's easy to run Windows applications on a Mac within OS X. The reverse is not really true (at least not yet): getting OS X going on a non-Mac is a little tricky, even with something fairly snazzy like Psystar's Rebel EFI.
Yep. Apple doesn't make super-low-end hardware.
With Boot Camp, it's as seamless as running a Windows PC. You choose an OS to boot; you boot into Windows. It's no different than a PC with a couple different operating systems installed. You choose an OS to boot; you boot into Windows. There's no real difference in that respect.
Would you say that booting OS X on a PC would be straying out of the PC ecosystem, and would you say that really matters?
Heh. Conflict of interest
That is epic.
Apple doesn't really make much high-end hardware either. Well, they do, (unless you want to play games) but they charge such a ridiculous premium for it it's much better just to get a normal PC.
Customer satisfaction. There is a difference. A big difference.
Because it's a hassle to switch from anything to anything else, and I doubt Windows users are so disenchanted by their Windows experience that they would actually want to switch to a Mac. I'm sure that customer satisfaction for PCs is quite high, too.
I'm still confused here. Your argument was that Mac users give up on a lot by buying Macs, for a few different reasons, but primarily because they can't run Windows applications (or Windows). After agreeing that there are some fairly reasonable options for running Windows applications either within OS X (Parallels, mainly) or via Boot Camp (effectively turning one's Mac into a Windows PC), you stated that doing so wouldn't be within the Mac "ecosystem", and, as such, Mac simply users wouldn't go for it. What is an "ecosystem" as it relates to computers, anyway?
I'd never use the "Mac is better" argument, personally. Some Macs are better in their respective classes (better meaning more features for the same or less money): the iMac's better than the Dell XPS One (unless you have a Blu-ray fixation); the Mac Pro's better than some Dell and HP workstation-class machines; the Macbook Pro's better than other laptops in its class, in some respects; the Air's better than the Adamo in many respects. I like OS X more than I do Windows 7, but not currently by leaps and bounds, and I don't do anything that specifically ties me to OS X (like Final Cut editing).
This would negate the purpose of their ads. In your scenario, Apple would have to make an Apple vs HP or Apple vs Dell commercial because of their broader range of supported operating systems, and thus programs. Touting the ability to put Windows on a Mac natively via Bootcamp renders the entire PC vs Mac commericals moot.
Macs cater to two groups - trendy people who blow more money on form over function, and media professionals who have to use FCP. Everyone else - hey, there's a PC with your name on it!
Why buy two machines when one runs 'em both?
You may not realize that you're comparing apples and oranges here, but that's precisely what you're doing. The mini's a comparatively expensive machine because it uses laptop parts to achieve its form factor. The desktop machine is going to be faster, yeah, that's a given. But it's not going to hit that form factor, nor is it going to suck down a mere 13 watts when it's idling, because it can't. The mini excels in ways that you may not particularly care about (albeit not many of them), but you can't simply evaluate a given product as being faster or slower than the mini and have the entire universe revolve around that, discarding every other potential merit. Sometimes, it just isn't about encoding H.264 video faster or getting more frames per second in CoD4 for the same amount of money. Some people genuinely don't care: they'd rather have the nice-looking, small, silent, power-sipping thing than the fairly big, slightly gaudy, power-sucking thing. Others might want to maximize performance-per-watt, so the mini wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense for them. Different strokes here.
I've never been trendy. I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Bingo. Anyone who directly equates objective superiority with market penetration is completely irrational. There's simply no nicer way of putting it.