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.