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.

[*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.

[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.