macs suck., pcs rule. Options

[sadolakced acid]

well, really, it's just a friendly mac v pc thread, and i know it's been posted before, but really, more people will click here if i name it 'macs suck'

my beef with macs-

i used mac OS way back when. bad experiences. not too much a legitimate reason today, but a reason none the less.

but the major one:

proprietary.

i don't know about now, but i know before that everything apple makes, they make it proprietary if they can.

for example, a PC owner can easily upgrade thier optical drive. they could pop in some more memory, or add in a new sound card.

now, sure, mac hardware may be good already, but you won't deny it's not the best, that would be much too expensive.

and as time goes by, it means the only way to upgrade is with a totally new computer.

i mean, sure, it works fine for people who don't want to be bothered to upgrade thier computers, and for the average user, macs are probably pretty good.

but i can't be hassled to buy a new comptuer if i want a CD burner and don't have one.

now, maybe apple has changed and i'm not up with the times. but irregardlessly, i severly dislike and avoid any company that insists on proprietary measures at any time.

which is why i do, and probably always will, hate apple.

[forza]

^ this is how Apple makes its money. They come out with newer, faster products that have more bells and whistles than before and they make them only accessible if you buy them completely.

Which is why I'm leary of buying an iPod. I want to wait until they've expended every possible upgrade. I want my iPod to be a phone, hold 200,000,000 songs, have GPS, make my morning coffee, and drive me to work.

[magicfann]

its retarded cuz on those iMac things you can't even open the case and replace crap, i mean on PCs nd shiet i can open the thing up and replace my piece of shit onboard gfx with some nice nvidia geforce but nooo on macs its like if you don't like it go buy a new POS mac

[smoke]

Yes, they do indeed suck. I've disliked Apple products for a long time now. Anything Apple has a tendency to want to throw every possible thing that could go wrong at you. And like forza stated, they come up with newer faster computers to sell more. It's Apple's way of making money off the ignorant people in the world.

Also, I don't like how much iMacs are limted. Most everything is made for PCs now and it's hard to find any good software to run on iMac's operating system. I guess that's why they decided to make iMacs with the option to install windows.

[*mipadi*]

And like forza stated, they come up with newer faster computers to sell more. It's Apple's way of making money off the ignorant people in the world.

What computer company doesn't release new products in order to make money?

[sadolakced acid]

well, what computer company's products are not user upgradable?

[*mipadi*]

I give up. Which computer company's products are not user-upgradeable?

I know you want the answer to be "Apple", but I'll have to apologize for pointing out that Apple's computers are user-upgradeable, so that's clearly not the answer. So that brings me back to my earlier point that it's ridiculous to criticize only Apple for "releasing new products to make money", when every computer company releases new products to make money. Commercial hardware/software follows a release cycle specifically defined to maximize profits.

But that's not even the point with my question. I can concede that some people who like to tinker with computers, and upgrade them often, would not be drawn to the Macintosh, and with good reason. But that doesn't nullify my point that all computer companies regularly release new products to make more money.

[sadolakced acid]

i have said that i don't have experience with newer macs. but i do know the older macs- incompatable mice, incompatable microphones, incompatible moniters.

that may have changed. but irregardless, the design of macs are prohibitive to upgrading. I have no doubt that the new macs that "work right out of the box" use laptop parts. And i'm pretty sure that although they are replacable, it's most likely with apple parts, and not all of them.

if you're going to have a desktop, might as well make it a PC. i don't like laptops because they're too hard to upgrade- right now i'm stuck with a 16 mb graphics card. If i had a desktop pc, i'd have bought a new one for 100 bucks and popped it in.

so sure, apple products are probably user upgradable. But this is at a backseat to style and cosmetics.

for the average user- macs probably are great.

anyways, i just posted this thread so that we can yell at people who start mac/ pc bashing in topics. i'd like to once read a topic about macs or ipods without any bashing happening.

[forza]

^ this has nothing to do with the thread, but 'irregardless' isn't a word.

[smoke]

I give up. Which computer company's products are not user-upgradeable?

I know you want the answer to be "Apple", but I'll have to apologize for pointing out that Apple's computers are user-upgradeable, so that's clearly not the answer. So that brings me back to my earlier point that it's ridiculous to criticize only Apple for "releasing new products to make money", when every computer company releases new products to make money. Commercial hardware/software follows a release cycle specifically defined to maximize profits.

But that's not even the point with my question. I can concede that some people who like to tinker with computers, and upgrade them often, would not be drawn to the Macintosh, and with good reason. But that doesn't nullify my point that all computer companies regularly release new products to make more money.

What I meant was a PC owner (who owns a PC that's not integrated) can go out and buy some ram for around $70 and install it eaisily by themselves. With most iMacs, you would have to buy a brand new iMac to get more ram. That's how Apple is trying to make it's money. The common PC user wouldn't know the difference. It's actually a pretty good business plan.

Oh, and could you show me an iMac that is almost entirely user-upgradeable, like a PC?

And, yes, all companies release new products to make more money, but Apple doesn't give you the option to upgrade like most other computer companies. And [i]that[/] is how they make their money.

[sadolakced acid]

^ this has nothing to do with the thread, but 'irregardless' isn't a word.

just like "inflammable" and "flammable" don't mean the same things.

=]

[*mipadi*]

You're both focusing on the upgradeability issue as though it is the Holy Grail of computing, and it's what every user wants to achieve. This is not the case. Some users value other features of a computer than simply upgradeability.

If being able to upgrade a graphics card is the most important part of your computing experience, then no, a Macintosh is not a good option for you. But just because a graphics card cannot be upgrade, does not mean the computer "sucks" per se. Upgradeability is not necessarily the most important feature for all users.

What I'm getting at is that everyone has a preference when buying a computer. Furthermore, a computer is a tool, and some tools are better for some jobs than others. If upgrading all parts is important to you, then no, don't buy a Macintosh. But also realize that some people don't care about upgrading every single piece of hardware on a computer.

And you're both operating under some misconceptions about the Macintosh. Many parts can be upgraded—the RAM on an iMac, for instance (I don't know where you got the idea that it cannot be upgraded). And almost all the parts on the Power Mac can be upgraded, just to give you the requested example.

[*Programmer*]

my whole problem is that mac creates computers with no PC software availible for them.

[forza]

^ Actually their new advertising platform is based on their more extensive PC compatibility. Most Windows programs run just fine on Mac computers (Microsoft Office, for example).

[ThunderEvermore]

just like "inflammable" and "flammable" don't mean the same things.

=]

No, he's right, irregardless isn't technically an official word. Its used a lot, but it's not a word.

Regardless is what you're all looking for.

[sadolakced acid]

not a word based on who?

dictionaries are politics.

languages evolve all the time. there is no such thing as "not a word".

to me, inflammable means just that- not flammable. i don't care what websters or oxford says. eventually, if enough people believe that, then webster and oxford will agree with me.

regardless is not the word i'm looking for. irregardless is. and i don't give a damn what your english teacher says. and i sure as hell am not going to simply follow others.


anyways, michael, those new spiffy macs that you see in commercials. the ones that are just a laptop's guts on a screen stand. those. can you upgrade those? can you add RAM to those?

most likely the answer is yes, but (insert complication here). i don't know for sure.

i'm not focusing on upgradabillity as what everyone wants in computing. i'm focusing on it because it's what i want.

and also, choice.

sure, you can upgrade mac products. but is it to another apple product? or a company that pays money to apple for the 'right' to sell products compatible with thiers?

it's the same reason i like firefox. it's not much better than other programs, opera, for instance, gives it a run for it's money. but i like firefox.

i can customize it however i want. the exentions i used don't even have to be approved by mozilla, much less created by them. i can make it mine, so much so that it's hard for me to use someone else's firefox.

why should computers be different? it's a Personal computer. in the days when multiple users shared one computer, one uniform interface made sense. multiple user accounts was an attempt at a compromise.

but now, my computer is mine. people may borrow it, but they recognize that the settings are mine. if i had a desktop, i would change it however i wished. mac owners know what version thier mac is. The specs. if you picked up someone else's mac of the same type, you pretty much know what it's going to be.

PCs are different. for instance, ask kryo what he's running. then try to find 100 people running the same specs as him. i doubt you'll find one.

for most users, macs are the better choice. but for anyone who's not content with using a compromise (because one computer can't be the right one for everyone), then PCs are better.

[31miracles]

all i know macs are better.
macs freeze less
are faster
and get less viruses.

I have both and my PC can't handle a lot of stuff

[ThunderEvermore]

Well then to me Taco means atom bomb.

Guess I had a real hearty dinner last night.

[*mipadi*]

Justin, your point about personalization is valid, and I reiterate: If tinkering with the hardware of your computer is a priority, then a Mac is not for you. But I think you're amiss in arguing that raw specs are the only way to personalize a computer. In fact, I say who cares? Who cares if your specs are a bit different than mine? In the PC world, you're probably running Windows and Office, and have WMP and IE on your computer, anyway. It's not exactly "different" or original to own a PC. Owning a Wintel computer doesn't exactly make for a lot of personal expression per se--it's pretty vanilla. There're ways to mod the hardware, maybe add some lights, but in the end, it's still a PC, just like 90% of the other home computers.

Of course, I also don't see the point in using a particular type of computer to "be different" or "original", but that's just me. If that's a priority of yours, then more power to you, but again, I wonder how you consider using a PC to be "different" or unique. I'm not really that concerned if I see another person with a computer identical to mine.

Besides, the real customization, and personality, of computers lies on the inside. You pointed out the extensibility of Firefox, perhaps one of its greatest strengths. Extensibility is great--and OS X applications are generally much more extensible than Windows applications. OS X's application framework (called Cocoa) allows for the easy implementation of plug-ins for applications (I am, in fact, part of an open-source effort to develop a framework that will allow the implementation of virtually any IM protocol, past, present, and future, using a plugin architecture), and applications are hackable in many other "unsanctioned" ways, thanks to the dynamic runtime abilities of Cocoa. Then there's AppleScript, which allows for even more abilities to enhance applications. John Gruber over at Daring Fireball explains this a lot better, but suffice it to say that applications on OS X are pretty personalizable. And then, of course, there's a rich bed of open-source development in OS X (more so, it seems to me, than in the Windows world), which opens up a lot more room for extensibility.

And there is, of course, the point that your specific example--Firefox--is available for OS X, as is its close cousin, Camino, a Firefox derivative.

I think many of these debates are pretty pointless. I'm not that concerned with platform choice. I'm happy using OS X. I'm sure many people are happy using Windows. You have to choose the platform that suits your style and needs. If you want to hack hardware, no, the Macintosh is not a great platform. But there's a lot of ignorance out there about the supposed limitations of the Macintosh and OS X, many of which simply are not true.

[ThunderEvermore]

I just dont like OSX, not my cup of tea, maybe its just because I was raised on Windows, but I am completely not comfortable with it.

Of course now Macs can run Windows, which is great an all, except Macs are pretty damned expensive too. They generally dont make cheap low grade versions for your average not-looking-to-spend-a-butt-load-of-cash customer, like me, pretty much. Meanwhile, if I go to Dell or HP or whatever, get a windows machine, I can get decent hardware for a low low price. Granted, the stats and the hardware wont be as good as a mac's innards, but that, I guess, is kinda my point.

[sadolakced acid]

look michael, you seem overtly defensive.

i came out in the begining and said that this is MY problem with macs. not THE problem with macs.

i don't see how that translates into an attack on macs in general.

i'll tell you my perceptions of macs, and you'll correct them, alright?

1- with a mac, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got.

2- you have to deal with the ego of steve jobs. for instance, years of insisting that one mouse button was the way to go, and then when coming out with a two button mouse, acting as if they were coming out with something revolutionary that was much better than all the other two button mouses in the world.

3- apple claimed that, by simply switching to intel, using the same chips as everyone else, they made a comptuer 5 times as fast as existing ones. i saw the commercials. and i'm pretty sure that that's a pretty far fetched claim.

4- you pay a premium for style, style you may not even like. sure, the new macbooks are pretty cheap. but why the heck is the black one, the only one i like, more expensive? for no other reason?

5- mac users, in general, think their better, sort of like the linux users. somehow, using a mac makes them much better than windows users.

6- apple is all about proprietary. when they can get away with it, they'll go proprietary. of course, they do recognize when they can't, but they try to use proprietary whenever they can.

7- apple makes little effort to be compatible with PCs. i know before, when floppy disks were still quite prevalent, the problems with different disk formatting. i don't know if that applys now (i think it does, in USB drives, for instance), but it seems to be a general trend from apple.

8. apple thinks they're better. intel chips sucked- untill they started using them. (look at the ads). PCs aren't fun- yet they offer about the same set of software. two mouse buttons sucked- untill apple made a mouse with two.

numbero eight is a pretty big thing for me.

[*mipadi*]

look michael, you seem overtly defensive.

Defensive? No, just discussing the issue. I actually think it's kind of funny that you call me defensive. I'm not the one that made a whole thread about how a certain type of computer sucks. And I'm not the one who goes into threads about Macs, or iPods, to slam those products, even when it's just a group of users trying to discuss something in a non-confrontational manner.

1- with a mac, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got.

Not really. You can upgrade them, usually pretty easily. On some models, the graphics card might not be that easy to upgrade, but it probably comes with a decent one already. Remember, most Mac users aren't in the rat-race of upgrading for gaming, so they don't really need to upgrade a graphics card that often.

Certain components, like the motherboard or processor, are not easy to upgrade, but then again, they're not easy to upgrade on a consumer PC, either. Numerous companies do make add-on motherboards and processors for the Macintosh, though.

In terms of other components—RAM, hard drive, monitor (in the case of the PowerMac)—Macs are very easy to upgrade, and use industry-standard parts.

2- you have to deal with the ego of steve jobs. for instance, years of insisting that one mouse button was the way to go, and then when coming out with a two button mouse, acting as if they were coming out with something revolutionary that was much better than all the other two button mouses in the world.

There's no doubting Steve Jobs' arrogance, but I hardly think a Mac user has to deal with it. The people who have to deal with it are his wife and fellow executives.

Incidentally, the two-button mouse thing was more for Windows users switching to the Mac. Long-time Mac users will know that you don't need a two-button mouse on a Mac. I've neve had a use for one, and never been hindered without it.

3- apple claimed that, by simply switching to intel, using the same chips as everyone else, they made a comptuer 5 times as fast as existing ones. i saw the commercials. and i'm pretty sure that that's a pretty far fetched claim.

Reread the marketing material—Apple never claimed their Intel-based machines were five times faster than other Intel-based machines, they claimed they were four to five times faster than PowerPC-based Macintoshes, which is, strangely enough, pretty accurate by most accounts (including those of independent journalists doing reviews). Apple wasn't comparing to other machines—it was comparing to itself.

4- you pay a premium for style, style you may not even like. sure, the new macbooks are pretty cheap. but why the heck is the black one, the only one i like, more expensive? for no other reason?

That I can't answer. Marketing reasons, perhaps. Of course, this is no different from other companies—you only get one style from Dell or Lenovo, too.

5- mac users, in general, think their better, sort of like the linux users. somehow, using a mac makes them much better than windows users.

This is pretty unfair. To be sure, some Mac users have a big of an ego. But take a look around: a lot of PC users do, too. How many times does someone post something in a thread like "Macs suck" or "iPods suck" in this forum alone, just because someone said "I like Macs" or "I like iPods", even when that's not the discussion? Compare that to the number of times someone comes out of nowhere and says "Windows sucks" or "PC's suck", and then tell me it's only Mac users—and Mac users in general—who think they are better.

In fact, it seems with technology that users of all types get pretty emotional. How often are there disagreements on here about the superiority of the Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2? How often does the PS3 or Xbox 360 get knocked on? I even just saw a thread where one guy called another a fag for playing Counter-Strike Source, and another guy called him a fag for playing CS 1.6 instead of 1.5. The issue of superiority is hardly unique to Mac users and Linux users.

6- apple is all about proprietary. when they can get away with it, they'll go proprietary. of course, they do recognize when they can't, but they try to use proprietary whenever they can.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "proprietary". Macs use industry-standard parts; they use industry-standard and open-source software components. I can buy a Mac and remove all my Apple software from it. Try doing that with Windows: It's so hard and time-consuming to remove IE from Windows that it might as well be labeled impossible, and removing WMP and Outlook Express is a chore, too. That's jus an example of vender lock-in on Windows PC's.

As a whole, yes, Macs are proprietary. Bad thing? Some think so. Some would say not. I, for example, find it to be one of the Mac's greatest strengths. I don't have nearly as many headaches with device drivers as I do on Windows, for example. I don't have nearly as many problems at boot-up with trying to validate hardware. My computer actually goes to sleep, something that none of the three PC's I have at home do regularly, which is an example of its hardware and software working in sync. I don't feel hobbled by the proprietary nature of the Macintosh; in fact, I feel empowered, because my time isn't wasted trying to get my computer to recognize a secondary hard drive or the graphics card.

7- apple makes little effort to be compatible with PCs. i know before, when floppy disks were still quite prevalent, the problems with different disk formatting. i don't know if that applys now (i think it does, in USB drives, for instance), but it seems to be a general trend from apple.

This is one place where I think you're rather wrong. Yes, Apple traditionally used its own filesystem with floppies—but so did DOS/Windows, so how can you accuse Apple of making little effort to be compatible? Keep in mind that Macs could, from very on, read and write to DOS disks. Even today, OS X can read from/write to FAT16 and FAT32 volumes—and it could do the same with NTFS volumes, too, if Microsoft would release the spec to NTFS (wait, what's this—another example company other than Apple using proprietary technology? ).

Furthermore, Macs can read from/write to Windows SMB shares, as well as network easily with Unix-based machines.

But what about Windows? Hm, Windows can't connect to an Apple share over AFP. Windows can't even network with other machines, unless those machines masquerade as Windows boxes. Oh, and even in 2006, Windows still can't read non-FAT and non-NTFS disks. So is it Apple that's not compatible with Windows, or Windows that isn't compatible with, well, every other system in existence?

8. apple thinks they're better. intel chips sucked- untill they started using them. (look at the ads). PCs aren't fun- yet they offer about the same set of software. two mouse buttons sucked- untill apple made a mouse with two.

You seem to be unduly emotional about a company promoting their own products above those of their competitors! Does Apple think its products are better? I don't doubt it. But what company doesn't promote their products as better than others? This goes back to an earlier point—that some seem to be criticizing Apple for doing what every other company does to make money.

Does Apple deserve some of the credit they give? Well, they do create some pretty revolutionary designs. They do win quite a number of awards for both hardware and software design. And they did put a lot more effort into their user interface than Microsoft does in its own. Does that make them better? That's for you to decide. But I don't think you should be shocked that Apple would promote its own products as better than those of rival corporations! They are trying to make a buck, after all, and companies don't make a buck by pointing out the benefits of other products.

[colleen92]

so do emachines. uuggggggggh...they're cheap for a reason

[*baby_in_blue*]

well. i have an apple laptop and i wouldnt ttrade it for anything because it works beautifully

[EddieV]

From what I've seen, everyone's pretty satisfied with what they have, so I'd say Macs and PCs are pretty much the same, it's just a preference. As for me I dislike Macs, I prefer PC.

[sadolakced acid]

well, sorry if i find blatant corporatism distasteful.

i dunno, when a companies ads are all about putting down the competition, you kinda question what they have to offer.

[lanbexx]

my biggest beef with macs is apple and its fans. mipadi, actually a LOT of mac users are basically pricks with money. admittedly, youre not really in that category because you hold a lot of knowledge. but most mac users think that since theyre using a mac, theyre suddenly in an elitest group that is better than "normal" PC users. and apple doesnt help at all. looking at some of their most recent commercials and its pretty blatant. unlike most PC commercials that stress good deals or better performance than comptetitors, Mac commercials just feed into the eliteist idea that if ur a Mac user, ur better than everyone else. The whole brown box commercial vs the Mac commercial, anyone? and that whole "i moved to mac cause of the dreaded blue screen" commercials? Mac users tend to eat up everything Apple says and just repeat it. kinda like how one jock says something retarded, every other jock will laugh. and apple also shows its arrogance even in its marketing. Apple tried to liscense the i____ name (ipod, itrip) because they thought it was an infringement on their profits, even tho they didnt make any effort until the market exploded with those addons. another one, why not let PC users use OSX legally on their computers, instead of holding it really really close to their chest and yelling at hackers who break through their code and discover flaws, yet proclaim that using windows on macs is a totally justified and should be advocated for? because they dont like playing fair

so ill be quite a bit happier with macs and their users (even if not as much as PCs) when apple stops lying and acting like like theyre better than everyone else.

[*mipadi*]

my biggest beef with macs is apple and its fans. mipadi, actually a LOT of mac users are basically pricks with money.

This goes back to what I was saying before. Certainly there are some Mac users who are, well, assholes about being a Mac user. Even I, as a Mac user, get pretty irritated when I see other Mac users being elitist and spouting off misinformation and Apple corporate propaganda.

But a lot of PC users act as though Mac users are the only ones who do it--they act as though PC users are victims of this "abuse". This is most certainly not the case. Back when I was a wee Mac user, I didn't care about the Mac-vs.-PC debate at all--yet anytime I mentioned my Mac, or used one at school, hardcore PC users would almost always make some kind of snarky remark. I didn't want to debate the issue, but someone always had to make a joke. Take a look around this forum: Anytime there's a topic about iPods or Macs, even ones that don't bring any sort of debate into the thread, but are merely talking about the product amongst other users, an anti-Mac member almost always coasts in to say that iPods suck, or Macs suck, or Mac OS X sucks. To be fair, you don't see that many Mac users going into the Counter-Strike thread, or other PC threads, and saying that PCs suck for no reason. And notice that this thread in particular wasn't started by a Mac user under the title "PCs suck!".

In my opinion, going out of one's way to put down Apple products is just as elitist as a Mac user going out of his way to prop up Apple products. The point, though, is that you can't really criticize Mac users for being elitist, while letting PC users off the hook.

Is that to say all PC users are assholes? No, just as not all Mac users are elitist. I know a lot of Mac users who aren't just "pricks with money", and it's unfair to characterize them as that. In fact, most I know aren't (and, being a Mac user, I am involved in numerous groups and projects that put me in regular contact with other users). You have a few assholes on both sides of the fence--but is it fair to only criticize Mac users, or stereotype all Mac users based on a few?

Sure, Apple might have a bit of a "cool" factor now, but you have to remember that there are a lot of Mac users--such as myself--that have been using Macs since well before they were cool. I've been using Macs since 1994, and Apple IIs before that; and there are many users who have been onboard since 1984. And you know what? Most of the Mac users who have been around since then have long grown above the "Macs rule! Everyone else sucks!" rally.

John Gruber, a pretty unbiased Mac user/blogger, offers a good article on why people get so emotional about this debate, and a lot of it comes down to people not truly understanding the reasons why users make different choices. A lot of Windows users think that Mac users are "rich, elitist pricks" who think they're better because they use a Mac; a lot of Mac users attribute a choice to use Windows as a lack of aesthetic abilities. Both assumptions offend the other crowd--and they're not usually correct. People have good reasons to use Macs, just as people have good reasons to use Windows.

admittedly, youre not really in that category because you hold a lot of knowledge. but most mac users think that since theyre using a mac, theyre suddenly in an elitest group that is better than "normal" PC users.

I might be reading too much into your point, but I think you raise another issue. Again, certainly some Mac users think they're better than PC users, but often times that is not the case. But there often times is a tendency with some PC users, especially those really into PC gaming, to believe that because a Mac is simple to use, it's a "toy", and most Mac users know nothing about computers. This is not the case at all. Sure, some Mac users know nothing about computers--but a lot of PC users know nothing about computers, either. Some of the most talented software engineers I know work on Macs. Granted, I'm a bit biased, since a large amount of my own development efforts are on the Mac, with other Mac developers, but the point is not to say that the Windows side has no talented developers (this is, of course, untrue), but that the Mac has talented, knowledgeable users, too. In fact, most Mac users do know something about computers. Let's be honest: If you know nothing about computers, you're going go to Wal-Mart, CompUSA, Circuit City, Staples, or Dell, and say, "I want a computer," and you're almost definitely going to get a PC. You have to know where to look if you want a Mac. Again, that's not to say that all PC users are clueless; it's just to emphasize that Mac users, as a whole are not an ignorant lot of users.

and apple doesnt help at all. looking at some of their most recent commercials and its pretty blatant. unlike most PC commercials that stress good deals or better performance than comptetitors, Mac commercials just feed into the eliteist idea that if ur a Mac user, ur better than everyone else. The whole brown box commercial vs the Mac commercial, anyone?

Granted, a lot of Apple promotional material is over the top, but does that mean you should hate Apple, or the Mac? Furthermore, welcome to corporate America. Whether you like or hate rampant corporatism, it's something you probably will have to get used to. You even said yourself that "most PC commercials stress good deals or better performance than competitors." Well, Dell is a competitor. There's no reason to be surprised that Apple would promote its own products above that of Dell.

Of course, I understand what you're saying about Apple's ridiculous commercials, but maybe this is their come-uppance for years of ridicule from PC manufacturers.

Mac users tend to eat up everything Apple says and just repeat it. kinda like how one jock says something retarded, every other jock will laugh.

Again, emphasis that some Mac users spout Apple corporate propaganda--just like some PC users spout PC propaganda (does "You can't find software for the Mac" and "Macs can't be upgraded" sound familiar?). This isn't an issue of Mac users; it's an issue of some users in general.

and apple also shows its arrogance even in its marketing. Apple tried to liscense the i____ name (ipod, itrip) because they thought it was an infringement on their profits, even tho they didnt make any effort until the market exploded with those addons.

Welcome to US patent law. Most companies do the same thing. Microsoft even sued some kid because he had a domain name called mikerowesoft.com. Is this right or wrong? Well, under US patent law, companies have to make an attempt to protect profits and ideas. Does it suck? Well, anyone who talks to me long enough will find out I'm no fan of US patent/copyright law at all, and I think it needs modernized and reworked. So I cringe when I see rampant patent filing and suing. But again, this is not unique to Apple, and it's kind of ridiculous to only criticize Apple for it.

another one, why not let PC users use OSX legally on their computers, instead of holding it really really close to their chest and yelling at hackers who break through their code and discover flaws, yet proclaim that using windows on macs is a totally justified and should be advocated for? because they dont like playing fair

Is it not playing fair? Apple is a hardware company. They make money off of their hardware. Hardware sales fund OS research. Part of the strength of OS X is its ties to the hardware on which it runs. I discussed this earlier, but it's a key factor in making OS X run as smoothly as it does.

Macs are sold as a unit, hardware and software. In the 1980s, Microsoft chose not to do this. They went with a different route: Licensing DOS, then Windows, to anyone who wanted to run it. It's not as though Microsoft doesn't make an money when a user chooses to run Windows on a Mac--they still sell a copy of Windows, and still gain a Windows user, so it's not exactly a cheap shot. (You'll note that neither Microsoft nor Dell are exactly hurting from the decision to allow Macs to run Windows, either.) Furthermore, Apple doesn't sell Macs with Windows pre-installed, so they're not exactly advocating it. They're just offering an option.

That said, would I like to see OS X on non-Apple machines? Sure, it'd be cool. But it would also break one of the biggest strenghts of the Mac, and I doubt the experience would be as good.

[sadolakced acid]

really, is apple capable of making a comercial that simply points out the good qualities of a mac? dell seems to do it fine. i don't see them constantly comparing thier products with apple's.

the magsafe connector. pretty nice idea. it's been used for years on portable stoves, etc. where the danger from pulling the product off a table is very serious.

but how come, when apple uses it, it's a brillant new invention? i mean, sure, it's useful, but it sure isn't as original as apple makes it out to be.

this sort of apple arrogance- sure, it's just a company trying to make money. but that doesn't mean i have to accept it and buy thier products- expecially when other companies lack that arrogance.

[*mipadi*]

Are we discussing Apple's corporate ethics, or the Macintosh platform here?

I'm not going to justify Apple's ethics. Admittedly, as much as I love the Macintosh, I'm not always a terribly big fan of Apple. Do I think they make excellent products, from a technical perspective? Yes, I do. Do I think they always go about marketing and distributing their products in a completely honest way? No, I don't. A lot of things about Apple unsettle me. I don't agree with their refusal to license FairPlay. I don't agree with much of their negative marketing. So I'll certainly agree that Apple isn't always a completely honest corporation, and does have some arrogance about it.

Of course, so does the competition, Microsoft in particular. Microsoft funds and distributes misinformation about Linux. Microsoft prevents computer companies from using anything but Windows in many of their computer models. And many of Microsoft's internal documents that have come out in the wake of their various antitrust trials show a high degree of arrogance.

And let's not forget that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist on not one, but two continents.

So again, I'm certainly not trying to justify Apple's marketing behavior. I'm not even trying to say that "two wrongs make a right" or "Apple is the lesser of two evils". I wish all companies would act in a more, well, mature manner. But, as I've said before, if we're going to single out Apple, let's put the focus on all players in the IT industry. It's unfair and even hypocritical to focus on Apple, to the exclusion of anyone else.

Of course, since this is a "Macs suck" thread, not an "Apple sucks" thread, it would be a lot more fun to discuss technical merits, not business practices and ethics.

On another note, I also think you're taking Apple's marketing materials a bit too seriously, and trying to read between the lines in an attempt to find something about Apple to hate. I don't think Apple ever claimed to have invented break-away power cords in a vacuum, without any outsider influence whatsoever. They do use it in a fairly novel way that's not in widespread use, and I think that's about as far as their marketing goes. Where would we be if a company was criticized whenever it was inspired by other ideas, instead of re-inventing the wheel with each new product?

Look at this point: Apple was the first to the market with built-in wireless capabilities in laptops. Now it's almost impossible to buy a laptop without built-in wireless capabilities. Should Dell be criticized because it "ripped off" Apple's idea? Absolutely not. Old ideas evolve and merge with new ones. No problem with that.

Or, geez, look at Alienware. I don't know if they still do, but Alienware once touted a design feature of its machines that kept cables organized and untangled. But one could argue that they were ripping off one of the features of the original iMac, which also featured cable minimalization. Now, should Alienware be criticized for claiming to "invent" tangle-free cable design? No, because its emphasis on that design wasn't meant to insinuate that it was a completely new and novel idea—it was just an attractive feature of the design of Alienware computers.

Likewise, Apple's not claiming to revolutionize the idea of the magnetic power cable, just that it's a novelty in Macs and laptops in general—which is true. They're using it as a selling point. Just because they emphasize it, does not mean they lay claim to its invention. You're simply reading too much into their advertising.

[sadolakced acid]

well, if you want to ignore apple ethics, then sure. but the ethics of the company play a part in my choice- for instance, i won't choose sony anymore, becuase of thier copy protection on thier CDs. it has affected my choice that blu-ray will suck, and it will affect my choice for many things. sure, i still buy sony, but only after careful examination, and only when quite beneficial.


as far as the powermac- aren't those discontinued? in contrast, the new macs, the ones that are "inspired by the ipod", and are basically a laptop's guts on a stand.

based on my dealings with laptops in general, i can pretty much say that, for a desktop, the new macs dont' seem that good at all.

first there's the premium for the compact parts. if you were to decide to get a new optical drive, assuming you could, it would require a laptop drive, i assume. a regular drive seems... a bit too big to fit in the mac. The building cost of a desktop from laptop parts is higher than an equal desktop from desktop parts. sure, there are slimline PCs, but those hardly seem good as well.

then, there's the problem of the whole thing being one package. sure, maybe you can upgrade th eparts inside- but you're stuck with the screen. you're stuck with that size.

which is why i say it's basically a laptop on a stand. to which i wonder: why not just get a laptop then? what's the point? for aesthetics?

i can't say much about OSX. i haven't used it. but the reasons to why OSX is better mostly entail problems with XP- problems i've never come across.

sure, it took me about 5 hours to install and configure all the software i wanted when i reinstalled windows (not becuase of any fatal errors or anything, i just wanted to get rid of 4 years worth of programs and files and such that had built up), but after that it's been smooth sailing.

quite frankly, i just don't see a reason to switch. i don't see a reason for mac users to go PC either.

[*mipadi*]

well, if you want to ignore apple ethics, then sure. but the ethics of the company play a part in my choice- for instance, i won't choose sony anymore, becuase of thier copy protection on thier CDs. it has affected my choice that blu-ray will suck, and it will affect my choice for many things. sure, i still buy sony, but only after careful examination, and only when quite beneficial.

I can respect such a decision, but it begs the question: If you feel so strongly about corporate ethics, why are you still using Windows? (I'm not trying to be a smartass, but your stance does raise that question.)

as far as the powermac- aren't those discontinued? in contrast, the new macs, the ones that are "inspired by the ipod", and are basically a laptop's guts on a stand.

I think you're talking about the iMac, I guess. At any rate, the PowerMac is still very much in the product line.

i can't say much about OSX. i haven't used it. but the reasons to why OSX is better mostly entail problems with XP- problems i've never come across.

There are certainly more reasons to switch than problems with XP. I can certainly say that the reasons I use OS X have little to do with perceived problems in XP.

[sadolakced acid]

becuase bill gates gives computers to poor kids to atone for his sins.

while steve jobs... just keeps making more money.

the power mac is still in production? did not know that. it's not the focus of the adverts.

what are reasons to switch then? if i'm having a prefectly fine time using windows, what are reasons to switch?

[forza]

becuase bill gates gives computers to poor kids to atone for his sins.

LMAO!



You're right. Bill Gates is like Andrew Carnegie on steroids. Giving away billions of dollars per year and stepping down from his company to help all the starving pigmies in New Guinea.

[sadolakced acid]

you know it. =]

[forza]

This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Hahahaha!

[aubbob]

well. i have an apple laptop and i wouldnt ttrade it for anything because it works beautifully

so do i.. i love mine..

[*mipadi*]

what are reasons to switch then? if i'm having a prefectly fine time using windows, what are reasons to switch?

If you're happy using Windows, why do you want reasons to switch?

I certainly have no problem with a person using Windows. What does get annoying is when such a user goes out of his way to attack users of other platforms, even when those users are just trying to discuss something amongst themselves. Almost anytime the Macintosh is mentioned in this forum, someone waltzes in and says something about how Macs suck—even if that's not the topic of the thread in the first place! And often times, as this thread shows, most are using misinformation, outdated information, or thin reasoning to support their claims.

If a person is happy with his platform choice, I'm not sure why he needs to justify it by attacking the choices of others. It's one thing to discuss in an intelligent manner, but most of the time, the users in debates such as this don't really want to listen to anyone else's arguments, or admit that perhaps they reasoned in error.

So if you are interested in switching and want more information, I'd be happy to provide some good reasoning. If you want to know why I choose to use a Macintosh, I'd be happy to provide reasoning on that, too. But if you're happy with Windows, don't want to switch, and don't really care why I use a Macintosh, then I don't see the point in providing a list of reasons.

Basically, I'm here to discuss, not argue, and not to convince other people to switch who don't really have an interest in switching. While I appreciate people who introduce me to new ideas and technologies, I don't like it when people go out of their way to convert me to their platform when I'm happy with mine; so if you're happy with yours, for whatever reasons, and don't have any interest in switching, why discuss it?

If, however, you want to discuss the relative merits of platforms, open your mind to new ideas a bit, or just learn something new, I'd be happy to talk about it. I could certainly use a new perspective or mind-opening discussion, as well.

I might be a Mac user, but I have actively used a wide, wide variety of systems, and written software in a number of languages, so I do have some clue about the strengths and weaknesses of numerous platforms.

[sadolakced acid]

well, i made this thread in hopes that we would not have to deal with "mac sucks" comments in every single thread.

well, i'm intersted in reasons mostly because, well, i've never really seen a list that didn't include some comparison to windows and how mac was better.

i mean, yes, i'm not interested in switching. but i do want to know more about OSX. whats so great about it, etc.

[EddieV]

I want to know about Linux, though I can't read up much on it.

[*mipadi*]

well, i'm intersted in reasons mostly because, well, i've never really seen a list that didn't include some comparison to windows and how mac was better.

i mean, yes, i'm not interested in switching. but i do want to know more about OSX. whats so great about it, etc.

It's hard to explain a choice from a list of options without a comparison to other options (and I'll note that you made a lot of comparisons to Apple to justify your choice ) but I'll see what I can do.

I think that, unlike most people who have responded in this thread so far, I'm going to take a few moments to level some criticisms at my platform of choice—because, after all, no one is perfect.

Keep in mind, too, that this list comes from running systems with Mac OS 7, Mac OS 8, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux, Fedora Core Linux; as well as using Sun Solaris and Red Hat Linux fairly extensively.

(Side note, this is a pretty long list, but I thought I should be as clear as possible.)

1. Cocoa API. Probably my favorite part of OS X, Cocoa, the programming API on OS X, makes programming fun and easy. First of all, it's highly dynamic. Unlike APIs based on Java or C++, Objective-C (the language used by Cocoa) emphasizes the object-oriented paradigm by allowing a high degree of runtime (as opposed to compile-time) dyanamicism. This allows highly flexible applications, as well as easy support for plug-in interfaces. OS X offers a lot of ways to alter the behavior of an application without having to touch a line of source code (a necessity in closed-source apps).
   
   Furthermore, Cocoa emphasizes frameworks, or common repositories of code, and Apple consistently updates its own frameworks (SQLite was a nice addition in 10.4, for example). Third-party frameworks can also be easily used. This allows developers (like me!) to focus on making apps cool, not making them work. One of the nicest frameworks is, of course, the open-source project WebKit, that allows easy HTML/XHTML rendering in any application.
2. Proprietary hardware. Some people think this is bad, but I think it's a good thing. It makes Macintoshes just work. I don't have to mess around with drivers, for example. I just boot up the system and it works.
   
   This doesn't mean I can't add new hardware; in fact, generally adding new hardware is a breeze, too.
3. Installation/Uninstallation. Most applications on OS X can be installed by simply copying them to my hard drive, or even run from a CD, virtual disk, or external drive. Uninstallation is a matter of dragging an app to the trash. (Some applications to require an installer, but most don't.)
   
   Plus, applications can just be dragged around from place to place to move them, and, as noted, run from an external drive, usually without problem.
4. Simple, elegant interface. The interface is beautiful, but also functional and, most importantly, simple. No need for wizards like in Windows, and I can log in without a million bubbles popping up on my screen. Apple takes great care in designing the interface, and their interface development software, Interface Builder, makes it almost impossible to design a bad interface.
5. Simple, but powerful. I've never felt limited by OS X. It's simple but everyday use, but powerful for any task. Has a nice Unix foundation, too, so I can do the same stuff I'd do on Linux or Unix, but without all the hassle. Subversion, CVS, telnet, ssh—it's all there. So is powerful scripting support, enhanced by the default installation of Perl, Python, Ruby, and PHP.
6. Unix stuff. Piggybacking on my last point, OS X adds some handy Unix stuff, like the bash and tsch shells, all that those entail. I almost feel crippled when I switch to a system without a bash or tcsh command-line interface, since there's so much that can be done with it.
7. Unicode. Alright, a minor point, but Unicode is cool, and an industry standard!
8. Wireless that just works. I set up my preferred networks, and OS X automatically connects. I plug in an Ethernet cable, and OS X switches over flawlessly. I think this is supposed to happen on Windows, but it doesn't seem to work as consistently on all laptops.
9. Sleep. I'm a big advocate of putting computers to sleep. Reduce energy usage, man. My Mac goes to sleep automatically without problem. My PC's have to be put to sleep manually—I've never had consistent and flawless power management on any PC. (Linux is even worse—last I checked, most distributions didn't even support sleep! It may have been added to the kernel in the last year, though.)

Here are some things I don't like so much about OS X, or Apple in general:

1. Proprietary software. Proprietary hardware isn't my concern—proprietary software is. Apple open-sources a lot of OS X: the kernel; a lot of the core utilities, drivers, and software; and WedKit, just to name a few components. I'd like to see them add more to open-source development, though—or at least not use proprietary file formats (although many of their formats are open). I'm not saying they should take the GNU approach and release everything under the GPL (the GPL doesn't exactly encourage innovation per se), but releasing more under, say, a BSD license would be cool. (Of course, again, Apple does open-source a lot of stuff in OS X.)
2. Consistent interface. Overall Apple's UI design is better than anyone else's, but geez, make it consistent. Brushed metal here, standard interface there—make a choice and stick with it. (Apple does seem to be moving towards a consistent theme with 10.4, but it's not there yet.)
3. Mount points. Where are my mount points? On most *nix systems, I can mount a second hard drive at, say, /dev or /Users. The OS treats the system as a single system, not a bunch of hard drives. Why can't OS X do that?

[*kryogenix*]

What I hate about Apple is their stupid ad campaign as of late. See here for example:

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/ge...ork_480x376.mov

When full (as in not watered down) games start coming out for Macs in the same time frame as PCs, then we can debate whether using a Mac or a PC is more fun. It's the same reason I don't want to move to Linux just yet. Until they get more than just Doom, Unreal and Quake running natively (I don't want any of the Cedega garbage), I probably won't want to make it my primary OS.

[*mipadi*]

I don't see what's objectionable about that specific commercial. Apple is emphasizing the "fun" and creative things you can do with Macs out of the box, stuff like editing movies, recording/editing your own music, taking, editing, and organizing photos, that kind of stuff. It's simply a fact that most PC's don't come with that sort of stuff. There isn't really a good "clone" of iMovie or Garageband that is also free (and Windows Movie Maker can't hold a candle to iMovie). On the Windows side, you have Google's Picasa as an alternative to iPhoto, but the key is that you have to find it yourself—it doesn't come with the PC. It's simply a fact that often PC's are bundled with "bread and butter"-type apps: apps that are necessary (like MS Office, Quicken, and so forth), but not really "fun". Apple's just emphasizing its "fun" apps. I don't see how that's more repulsive than other companies emphasizing the highlights of their own products.

The key is market. You noted that you don't find a Mac to be fun because it can't run the latest games. Apple's clearly not targeting gamers with that ad. They're targeting the moms and dads of the world who might find it "fun" to make a movie of little Johnnie's developmental highlights, or record little Suzie playing her clarinet. Those types of people do spend a lot of time just doing "boring" stuff with their PCs, but playing the latest games isn't really any more exciting for them. Apple's not targeting the gamer enthusiasts; in fact, with those ads, they're not even targeting computer enthusiasts at all, because the code hackers, developers, and computer junkies don't care about that stuff, either. For example, I quickly removed Garageband from my computer because it was too damn big and I never used it.

And at any rate, the Apple commercials themselves are just supposed to be fun. I think a lot of PC users tend to take them too seriously. Of course, maybe I'm missing something. What do you find hateful about that commercial?

[sadolakced acid]

^

well, i think it's nice that you find it for yourself, so it's only there if you need it. you said yourself you removed garageband. sure, i had to remove quicken and AOL, but i am in general against all bundled software.

also, you can choose yourself. granted, i can see how this is a hassle for other users who don't want to take that effort- they want thier computer to be like a car, for instance.

the recent ads are slightly better; but the ads announcing the switch to intel chips? that was a blatant stab at PCs.

thier ad about viruses is also misleading; there are mac viruses out there, right? they make it sound as if there are none. i'm not sure if macs come with antivirus and a firewall, but if not, that sort of false security could be dangerous.

a question though:

what are the video cameras and digital cameras that can be used with a mac? virtually all? or only select ones?

[*mipadi*]

what are the video cameras and digital cameras that can be used with a mac? virtually all? or only select ones?

I'd say virtually all. I've never had a problem getting photographs off of a digital camera, or capturing film from a videocamera. Just plug it in and go.

Yes, it really is that easy!

[lanbexx]

ive really yet to figure out how plugging in a camera to a PC is that hard... it doesnt even need drivers yet its attacked in one of those mac vs pc ads. meh wtvr

i think the reason the mac vs pc debate is so bad is mainly cause of apple. there arent THAT many differences between the two. and i doubt so many PC users would really go out of their way to attack the mac if unprovoked. Apple seems to be an expert at provoking the PC base. with those mac vs PC ads, its not a matter of "we highlight these great parts of the Mac and OSX" its "we'll bash and say everything that is bad about the PC, and then support our product." its not just coporate practice but also public image that is really arrogant and bad.

id rather this thread be made into an apple sucks thread.
tho i find if funny. 2 years ago everyone that was anti microsoft was also anti bill gates. it was a bill vs steve world. now... you really cant hate gates anymore. so wheres the fun in that anymore?

[*mipadi*]

If you want to hate Apple, hate Apple. If you want to turn this from a "Macs suck" into an "Apple sucks" thread, then go right ahead. But I'll point out that, while it's easy to say, "I don't like Macintoshes" (it is, after all, an opinion, and an opinion doesn't need to be justified to others per se), it seems to be rather hard to argue the more general statement "Macs suck", as evidenced most of the posters who replied "Macs suck" have since retreated to "Well, let's just argue that Apple sucks." Kind of proves an earlier point I made: That one might not prefer Macintoshes, but it's hard to say that they're worthless machines.

I think of the new Apple ads as comical, even whimsical in nature. While they are meant to sell a product, I think (like many ads) they are to be taken with a grain of salt. They're fun. They're not meant to be below-the-belt insults, and I think if a PC user is seriously offended by them, he needs to check his sense of humor. Look at how often gaming-centric sites like Ctrl-Alt-Del or Penny Arcade! make jokes about Macs. Are there hordes of people running around saying how they hate those artists for making a few jokes? And remember how often those old Apple switcher ads were lampooned? Some of those parodies were pretty funny. PC users (and Mac users alike) had a good laugh making and watching those—but it seems when the tables are turned, and Apple/Mac users are poking fun at PCs, PC user are all too quick to drop their senses of humor and cry foul.

[forza]

If you want to hate Apple, hate Apple. If you want to turn this from a "Macs suck" into an "Apple sucks" thread, then go right ahead. But I'll point out that, while it's easy to say, "I don't like Macintoshes" (it is, after all, an opinion, and an opinion doesn't need to be justified to others per se), it seems to be rather hard to argue the more general statement "Macs suck", as evidenced most of the posters who replied "Macs suck" have since retreated to "Well, let's just argue that Apple sucks." Kind of proves an earlier point I made: That one might not prefer Macintoshes, but it's hard to say that they're worthless machines.

I think of the new Apple ads as comical, even whimsical in nature. While they are meant to sell a product, I think (like many ads) they are to be taken with a grain of salt. They're fun. They're not meant to be below-the-belt insults, and I think if a PC user is seriously offended by them, he needs to check his sense of humor. Look at how often gaming-centric sites like Ctrl-Alt-Del or Penny Arcade! make jokes about Macs. Are there hordes of people running around saying how they hate those artists for making a few jokes? And remember how often those old Apple switcher ads were lampooned? Some of those parodies were pretty funny. PC users (and Mac users alike) had a good laugh making and watching those—but it seems when the tables are turned, and Apple/Mac users are poking fun at PCs, PC user are all too quick to drop their senses of humor and cry foul.

Yeah, but I still want to slap the douchebag actor that plays in them. He reeks of Steve Jobs' ass and stale marijuana, and yes, I have a TV that powerful.

Seriously, why didn't Steve Jobs just play that part? You know he wrote the script...

[*liquidize*]

You know what everyone is forgetting is that, No matter what everyones going to have their own little opinions, WHERE THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO GO TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM? NOWHERE


I personally view the mac as much more ideal, because of its OS..Apples support is pretty nice too.

[lanbexx]

the reason i think so many PC users are pissed off by these commercials is because, unlike ctrl-alt-del or penny arcade, Apple is actually sponsoring this.

also, those spoofs are obviously VERY rediculous or use very solid facts (mainly the game library point.... and thats about it i think). the apple commercials tend to exaggerate the facts to suit them. to say that Macs have no viruses and that every PC gets them is stretching the truth quite a bit. also, those old "i got the blue screen of death everytime" ads from way back when.

and that a professional company would sponsor attacks against PC USERS, well, i think thats one of the huge reasons PC users have suddenly become so defensive. if a satrical comic or some PC fanboy attacks a mac or its user, well thats easy to take with a grain of salt. to see professional ads cooked up by the Apple PR department, well thats a bit harder to take with a light heart. sice theyre actually not THAT funny.

other comics lampoon PCs (there was one with birds, and windows kept bragging that its new nest would have an elevator and stuff, but the mac pointed out that yet again the upgrade was delayed.) and those dont create nearly that much animosity and are easy to laugh at. (i actually like the mac windows linux bird one.)

[*This Confession*]

I heard macs where just confusing and suck.

And then some say their great.

I was going to get one and see for myself, may still do it.

But I like mac commercials, but ive had bad experiences with macs at my old school

[sadolakced acid]

well, i've never had to install drivers for any camera either. it is also that easy. i simply plug it in. sometimes windows searches for drivers online, but it does that without me. i plug it in, and in a minute or so, it's ready to go.

i'm pretty sure that if i plug in an ipod, i have to install itunes (that buggers me)

what do i like about my computer? it works. i have the programs i want on it. almost every program i find online or in a store works with it.

i spent a lot of time hating windows and bill gates before. but really, what's so sucky about it?

sure, ME sucked, and gave me BSODs twice a year, but i've never had a BSOD with XP.

i believe i've had one or two crashes where i tried to open files that were just too big for my RAM. but then, i bought some RAM and popped it in. i didn't hvae to go to my computer manufacturer for it, just staples. it was pretty cheap as well.

but since this is a macs suck thread, i'll get back on topic:

- macs run hot. i know the laptops do, but i don't know about the desktops. i assume they run about the same temperature, since they are basically laptops on stands.

- the OS is not intuitive. this is based on use of the old OS, so it might have changed, but i have a feeling that these quirks are still in effect.

for example, to eject a floppy, you drag the drive to trash. i remember learning this as a kid- it didn't make sense to me. i didn't want to throw away the floppy- i just wanted it back. a rightclick -> eject would have been more intuitive in my mind.

and another, shutdown is in special. not the apple symbol, but special. i, who used macs a lot as a kid, did not remember this and spent 10 minutes trying to shut down the old mac in my physics class. the menus are not at all intuitivly named. i mean, special? that could be anything. and the apple symbol? that's not even a name! it's even more confusing.

the macs i used didn't have second mouse buttons, so that was also quite annoying. very quite annoying, and instead of using the rightclick, i had to search through many menus for the item i wanted.

the menu bar at the top, not on the program window. this is quite annoying- you have to look to see which program you have selected before you use the menu bar, or you could delete the wrong thing. i know i hardly even use the menu bar on most my programs, so i'd imagine the menu bar is just dead weight, taking up screen space.

stupid error messages! i tried to print something, and it ran out of paper. instead of telling me that, or even there was a problem printing, the mac told me... finder needs attention!
i mean, what the hell? what the hell is finder? i never figured it out. but i suppose it was something that would have said "you ran out of paper". it's like if there were a fire, and you called 911 and told them "hey, if you go to this building and look west, you can see the problem".

stupid startup order. i don't know if this applies now, but on the old macs i remember having to turn on the accessories in a specific order, or they wouldn't work properly.

- the computers look girly. i just felt like saying that.

[medic]

^ this is how Apple makes its money. They come out with newer, faster products that have more bells and whistles than before and they make them only accessible if you buy them completely.

Which is why I'm leary of buying an iPod. I want to wait until they've expended every possible upgrade. I want my iPod to be a phone, hold 200,000,000 songs, have GPS, make my morning coffee, and drive me to work.

Actually mac makes there money by sell iPods. It and iTunes are the only thing keeping Apple alive. Not to mention the large amount of stock Microsoft owns in Apple has been keeping it afloat since the launch of the first Windows OS.

I own a mac, and when I bought it, there were NO new bells and whistles. WoW, it had a scroll button, my PC has had that since Windows 95.

[*mipadi*]

I wouldn't say music is the only thing keeping Apple alive. Its third quarter results (warning: PDF file) show that the music side of its business has been good, to the tune of about $1.9 billion; but its CPU sales made up $1.86 billion of its third-quarter profits. Throw in peripherals and software, and the non-music side of its business accounted for around $2.4 billion in sales in Q3 2006.

I don't mean to argue all the time, but there are a lot of inaccurate "facts" posted about Apple and the Macintosh.

[*kryogenix*]

I don't see what's objectionable about that specific commercial. Apple is emphasizing the "fun" and creative things you can do with Macs out of the box, stuff like editing movies, recording/editing your own music, taking, editing, and organizing photos, that kind of stuff. It's simply a fact that most PC's don't come with that sort of stuff. There isn't really a good "clone" of iMovie or Garageband that is also free (and Windows Movie Maker can't hold a candle to iMovie). On the Windows side, you have Google's Picasa as an alternative to iPhoto, but the key is that you have to find it yourself—it doesn't come with the PC. It's simply a fact that often PC's are bundled with "bread and butter"-type apps: apps that are necessary (like MS Office, Quicken, and so forth), but not really "fun". Apple's just emphasizing its "fun" apps. I don't see how that's more repulsive than other companies emphasizing the highlights of their own products.

If I remember correctly, Apple never mentioned out of the box functionality in that specific commercial. I did see another Apple commercial with the two guys sitting in cardboard boxes, but that was a different commercial.

The key is market. You noted that you don't find a Mac to be fun because it can't run the latest games. Apple's clearly not targeting gamers with that ad. They're targeting the moms and dads of the world who might find it "fun" to make a movie of little Johnnie's developmental highlights, or record little Suzie playing her clarinet. Those types of people do spend a lot of time just doing "boring" stuff with their PCs, but playing the latest games isn't really any more exciting for them. Apple's not targeting the gamer enthusiasts; in fact, with those ads, they're not even targeting computer enthusiasts at all, because the code hackers, developers, and computer junkies don't care about that stuff, either. For example, I quickly removed Garageband from my computer because it was too damn big and I never used it.

And that's why I won't buy a Mac. Their products are not marketed to me, which justifies me not wanting to buy a mac desktop. Laptops are a different story though, since I don't consider laptops as a cost effective gaming platform.

And at any rate, the Apple commercials themselves are just supposed to be fun. I think a lot of PC users tend to take them too seriously. Of course, maybe I'm missing something. What do you find hateful about that commercial?

The commercial is misleading, as I mentioned earlier. It's likely that the intended market of moms and dads may not be able to see through it (though I question why they would use a young hipster to target the market of moms and dads), but maybe you can understand why I'm put off by this particular ad. But hey, if it convinces moms and dads to buy apple, that's what really matters to Apple's stock price.

[aubbob]

my apple laptop spacebar is being strange
macs suck now!

[pinacoolada]

I think macs are great for animation. However, if you just want a computer for everyday use such as simply surfing the internet, PC's are way better because they're much more user-friendly.

I personally prefer the PC. Macs and I just don't click.

[uLoVeMikeRoch]

Which is why I'm leary of buying an iPod. I want to wait until they've expended every possible upgrade. I want my iPod to be a phone, hold 200,000,000 songs, have GPS, make my morning coffee, and drive me to work.

Wow, in that case, you're never gonna get an iPod. They don't add ANY new features to the iPod, let alone any feature you can add on in less then 5 minutes. Cough Radio Cough. Cough DIVX Cough. You get the point.

Also, with those commericals. After seeing that, I felt obligated to make my own commercials, except with LINUX. And show my LINUX can kick any mac or Pc's ass any day.

With the sales of their computers. I have met, way too many people, that bought a mac, because "It was pretty." If that is one of the key factors why that this company is alive, then Jobs might as well as go shoothimself.

all i know macs are better.
macs freeze less
are faster
and get less viruses.

I have both and my PC can't handle a lot of stuff

Can a MAC run F.E.A.R at full speed with all the graphic options on and set to maximum? Can a Mac run F.E.A.R at all?

I even just saw a thread where one guy called another a fag for playing Counter-Strike Source, and another guy called him a fag for playing CS 1.6 instead of 1.5.

Wow, I wonder who that was.... < < <-----

I don't mean to argue all the time, but there are a lot of inaccurate "facts" posted about Apple and the Macintosh.

Thats true, but replace the words Apple and Mac with anything else, and wouldn't it apply to everything?

Also, I problem I have with Apple and Steve Jobs, is that him and alot of other Mac/Apple fanboys/users think that they are bigger/greater then they actually are. They got cocky, over nothing, and boast stupid facts. I know this sounds like what you were talking about eariler, with people making smark and jackass comments when you said you used a Mac. But I have noticed this within that group of people. Ofcourse, alot of those people are idiot 12-16 year olds that go, "OMGIPODLOLZORS!THEBEST!!!!!111111ChEcKoUt MyPicTurEsonmysPACE!!LOLOMGLMAOROLFTTYLTYYAOSBDSIUBDISFGFSSHUTTHEFUCKUP!!!LOLZORS!
And thats just them talking in real life, you should see them online. Makes me want to get my shotgun and...

[magicfann]

Macs -

1) can't run any games worth playing
2) come with crap monitors that i dont think can be replaced (can someone say 75 Hz? uh duhrrr)
3) nice specs, my dimension dell from 2004 has better
4) one mouse button? nice man
5) uh...one drive? gg where do i put my floppys

PCs -

1) 3 drives, this is obviously bad
2) user upgradeable, open the case, replace ur crap integrated gpu with a nice nvidia
3) use whatever monitor you want, especially that nice new LCD designed for gaming =D
4) you can play counter-strike isn't that what matters?
5) kekekek even DELL gives you a better mouse
6) the keyboards are better (dont ask me why, the mac keyboard feels weird)

so as you can see, if you use a mac, you are obviously cool~

/sarcasm

so then i was like kekekeke

oh and btw, whoever said "i just saw someone call someone a fag for playing CS:S and then someone else call that person a fag for playing 1.6 instead of 1.5"

welll.....

YOU CAN'T PLAY 1.5 ANYMORE LOL UR BAD

[smoke]

As much as I dislike Macs, I love the commercials although they are misleading.

All this Mac talk is making me hungry. I got the blues.