Gadgetopia

That's funny as hell, and just more proof that everyone has their own perspective. A lot of people claim that Macs are so wonderfully usable and such, but they drive me up the friggin' wall.

There's a downside to everything in the world, no matter how great you may think it is.

That was a hoot! Did you notice that he didn't actually do any damage to the G4? He was handling it pretty carefully. The iMac probably had a dead CRT anyway; no great loss there.

Yes, Deane, everyone does have thier own perspective, but perspective is dependent upon where you're standing. I've thought about this a lot since your rantings from last week, and figured out that your trouble with Macs is less with the Mac than with your familiarity with the way things are done in Windoze.

You know your way around XP better than 98 percent of all users out there, and can do so many things with it without thinking. Put you in front of a Macintosh though, and it's like you were dropped in the middle of Afghanistan with nothing more than an English to whatever dictionary.

You don't hate the Macintosh; you just hate how it makes you feel. Now doesn't that make you feel just a little bit better? ;o)

your trouble with Macs is less with the Mac than with your familiarity with the way things are done in Windoze.

Could the inverse be true for you?

dropped in the middle of Afghanistan with nothing more than an English to whatever dictionary.

A little off-topic, but according to this site 50% of the Afghan population speaks Dari and 35% speaks Pashto.

50% of the Afghan population speaks Dari and 35% speaks Pashto.

That's pretty geeky, Noel; are you sure you didn't score higher than a 35? ;o) (Oh, and by the way, Dari is what Afganis call Farsi.)

Could the inverse be true for you?

Definitely, without a doubt. But the difference is that I spend time in both systems on a daily basis. With me in Windoze it's more like dropping me off in Afghanistan after studying Farsi for a while; I can get around ok on a PC, but it's not as familiar or easy for me as a Mac.

That's pretty funny! I like the part when he give up and start crying!!!

No rebuttal needed. Many of the things are based loosely on fact. Truth is always funny.

I think I have done some of those very same tirades.

For as much as a like my Macs, I really hate Apple's policy of not having hardware based feedback like drive activity lights (is it locked up? is it thinking?). Then there is the lack of OK or Apply buttons on control panel dialogs. Oh yeah, there is the cat and mouse game of "which tiny icon" lets you add or delete or change or whatever in just about any Apple software and..... sorry.

This affirms my theory that every piece of software (or hardware) -- no matter how good it is -- will always have huge, gaping holes in them somewhere.

The fact is that I'm a bad person to complain about Macs, because I don't work on one regularly. Dave is probably the most qualified person around here to say what's better and what isn't since he works with both all day long.

If you did work with both all day long, I'm willing to bet you'd find that they both do pretty much the same thing, just in different ways. Can someone on a Mac do something that someone on a PC absolutely cannot? I really doubt it.

I'm willing to concede that if someone took away my PC and stuck a Mac on my desk, I'd learn to live with it. I'd find other ways of doing the things I do on a PC, and perhaps find a few extra things I liked while learning to cope with the things I don't.

But, I always come back to one point: would have a Mac make me instantly more productive? Um, no.

I don't know who is better or worse; and frankly...does it really matter? The reality is that if the Macs are truly far superior to Windows PCs; their market share would reflect that. Unless 90+% of us are disillusioned or under Microsoft's spell (Muaaahahaa!).

I like to think of the machine and OS as a toolbox. The real power is the software or tools.

I was helping a Mac user the other day with getting the artwork for his newly recorded CD to the printers (printing press). The problem was that he was using PrintShop - not the best choice because it isn't possible to save off a 300dpi TIFF and he didn't have a print to PDF option. He requested my help so I offered to take the provided PhotoShop templates and place his artwork and text on while holding true to his design. He agreed. I reach into my laptop case and pulled out my Dell Inspiron, which he first mistook for one of those Mac whatevers - I'm Mac ignorant. He was like "ooooh” until he saw the "Dell" logo and it was like I just told him that I backed over his puppy. The next hour was painful. I heard things like "my Mac has never failed me before" and "my Mac usually runs circles around things I need to do."

Eventually it came down to the power and features of the software and had nothing to do with the machine. If he would have had PhotoShop on his Mac we could have done the exact same thing.

I do use both all day. And Deane is right, you learn to like things about each of them. Lately I have begun to appreciate both OS X and XP for their general reliability and capabilty. Sure they can both crash horribly, but 5 years ago we had to accept nearly daily crashes in OS9 or Win98. (And those were whole system crashes, not single app crashes). But I love that I can add MP3 tags to files using the just the OS. Or see little previews of images or PDFs when I am rooting around in the file listings.

I don't think market share is the only indicator of a product's superiority. (How ever that may be measured.) There are lots of other factors. I see lots of superior cars, but I drive an old Civic.

Hey Tom, That would be true if the pricing were wildly different. Most people buying a computer will spend at least $1000, which could easily buy an iMac or their new little $500 brick. I would agree with you if comparable systems were priced differently (i.e. Macs being 2-3 times more costly than a windows machine). Facts are facts, sorry for reality check.

Bill G

Bill, (I just love the thought of me having a discussion with Bill Gates) I am not under any self-deception as to how the market comes down on Macs. The reason I started using them was because in the early days of electronic publishing they were the right machines. (for whatever reason)

If price was all that effected buyers, we would all shop at Wal-Mart and buy the house brand. But we don't and I am happier because of it.

Some of us have good reason to like Macs and hate PC's.

You know what I had to put up with when I used a PC? Windows 98-XP were murder, even with all the Antivirus, Firewall, Security Updates, etc.

Linux wasn't any better. This particular distro was Red Hat. It failed to work correctly, even on supported hardware. It was 6.2 though so I am willing to give Linux another chance.

I never did get a good computer until I bought my iMac with Mac OS X last year. Never had any trouble, and it easily destroyed my new PC's, even with only a 600mhz G3 processor.

I agree with Bill... furthermore, people who have trouble with Windows PC's either do not have a good firewall protection solution in place and/or do not know how to say 'no' to so-called 'free' programs that get your permission to install themselves and reek havoc on your system...i think this is more a 'nut behind the wheel error'. With a whopping 3% of the market, i don't know why anyone would write a virus to attack apple's systems (i would go after the big numbers). Even with that, there are anti-virus programs available for the mac's; which means that there must be enough of a need to develop the product). The other funny thing is that just a few years ago 'Intel' was the enemy and the macies were saying everything bad about the company (inferior this and that)...now, it is unusually quiet because apple are now using that inferior company's devices in their new systems! It is real funny to watch apple at their conferences because they can't promote their products without taking a shot at the other side...very juvenile and an interesting study in psychology! Microsoft doesn't force you to buy their hardware and software all packaged. You can build a system from scratch, buy a bundled unit or even buy a cell phone that will run a version of XP. I think people enjoy that freedom of choice and, of course, the amount of software available for the XP operating system far exceeds apple's wildest dreams. Bill and I have discussed this in detail and we agree that you guys are fun to watch and are basically fooling yourselves. So, have fun taking shots at the other side because only 3% may be listening!

With love and affection... Steve B

First, macs have about 5% of the market now. Second, someone writing a virus would gain more notoriety from writing one for a mac than they ever would from one on a pc. This whole "no one writes for the little guy schtick" is old. There were viruses for os 9, when macs had less marketshare than they do now. Any programmer will tell you it is much harder to write a virus to infect a unix based system. The simple fact is that no one has been able to successfully write one. It has nothing to do with marketshare, OS x is more secure, period. As for there being anti-virus programs for macs, PC users are the reason for that. My company has to scan and clean our macs all the time, because we become carriers for viruses. While they have no effect on our systems, they can get to a client's PC. There are also Word Macro viruses which are a pain in the ass, because then our word files become infected, and when we email an attachment, it gets blocked by a firewall. Again, these have no effect on our machines, but we must deal with them because of the other 90 some odd % of virus sponges.

Okay, first of all, the reason Macs have none to little viruses is because they are so scarce - as stated before. Don't give us this 'invulnerable' bullshit - it can be easily done. And, anyone who spends a little time in learning how to use a PC will VERY rarely contract a virus (god help the person that has a problem with a Mac machine... you're screwed!).
To me, Microsoft is like.. democracy.. while Apple offers a communist approach. Again, as previously mentioned, when you buy a Mac (you know, the overpriced $2,500+ machine with a what.. 1.2 ghz chip?), you are channelled and FORCED into purchasing Apple's products. Some people LOVE Macs because, wow, if I want to get a program I have... ONE choice! Great - this is really simple! They really, and quite truly have not seen the light - for some strange reason, some people like to be limited. On a PC, it's a free ball game. You choose your program, and hell, you can even (Mac users cover your ears) MODIFY it to CHANGE it! Apple is feeding off the market of people who will not commit themselves to taking the time to learn how to use a computer properly - and they're getting rich off of it. How Apple does it is beyond me, but Mac users need to understand there is much, MUCH better bang for your buck beyond the blindfold of Apple. (I'm typing this on my Powerbook G4. Tonight this machine has failed to open about three java applets and god knows how many movie files.) Screw Apple.

Personally, I'm a linux-user; I can see the merits of a system running windows (mainly that it's simple and quite easy, even for people who have no idea what the hell they're doing). Macs, however leave me totally in the dark; I am only 17, but I have been using computers ever since my dad got an IBM XT (I was 3), and I write (simple) programs on my own to accomplish what I need done. I know a hell of a lot about computers, compared to most people. To me, using a Mac is not simple; I can never get anything done, hell, it took me about a half an hour to figure out how to open the cdrom drive on one I messed around with in a computer store, so user-friendly interface with a mac (at least OS X, I've used OS 9, and I have to admit, I kinda liked it) is bullshit. A Mac is also an inferior machine for just about any process, hell, a G3 doesn't even support O3 optimization flags (for those of you who don't know what this is, it is a compiler option for efficiency of code execution; Intels and amds have supported this flag since the days of the PII). Also, the Mac OS is now built upon open-sourced software; it's like a version of Linux that basically has all the customization features ripped from it, so that stupid users won't screw it up, however, my main purpose for switching to Linux was because I felt advanced enough a user to be able to handle being able to ruin my system at a moment's notice, and I like the ability to optimize for speed. The machine I currently own also surpasses low-end Mac quad cores in benchmarks involving Half Life 2 (and from my experience, there are 3 things that test a computer's ability: gaming comes first, then video-editing/producing (close second) and lastly, drafting), the fact that my computer runs on a singl-core processor and can outperfor a quad core (4x as many processing cores as my machine!!!) startles me, obviously, Apple's machine power is truly nothing to be excited about. I have to admit, Mac's have had their merits in the past, but now, especially with the switch to Intel processors (inferior to AMD in every way) they are a thing of the past; they should be revered as such, but come on, they really suck compared to a half-decent PC (note: mine would cost about $900 to make)

Mac's don't have virus' because they're based on Unix. Does LINUX have any virus'?? Nope, cause it's Unix, and Unix makes DOS look very pathetic. Unix was the original multi-tasking operating system, and was built for servers, thus having a lot of security written directly into the core of the OS, vs Windows was simply written as a workstation OS, no security, nothing, zip! Then later they decide to "patch" some security into it, and well to be honest once you patch something so much it just looks like one big patch. If people think it can EASILY be done, unix has been around for 30 years but still nothing... ?? And i'm sure people would want to, because Unix is running on lots of servers with information worth lots of money... AT&T is one and i have no idea, i'm sure several big companies use them however i don't feel like doing the research just to find out, cause i really don't care.

Mac's are very far from being overpriced. A new iMac with a dual core processor, camera, wireless, bluetooth, remote w/ media navigation, DL DVD-RW/CD-RW, 17" LCD Widescreen display, for what, a mere 1300 bucks! And guess what, no 70 dollar norton internet security to protect it, and no 70 dollar norton systemworks to optimize the operating sysem (cause it doesnt need it, and defrags itself on the fly).

Currently macs are being switched to Intel chips, therefore processor differences will be zero between a mac and a PC. Formerly, they have been using chips made by IBM of the "power" family. These chips are usually a slower clock-rate than intel, or AMD chips, but people forget a very important thing. These chips are RISC chips, or "reduced instruction set chips" which basically means they are roughly twice as fast as a CISC chip "complex instruction set chip" which are Intel, and AMD. Therefore, a 1ghz PowerPC G5 would basically equal a 2GHz pentium 4 chip. There i said it, and it's true, and tests have been done, and benchmarks, and it's been proven already so dont bother saying anything back about that. Currently a G5 is available in a dual core 2.5ghz at max, and yes, you would need a DUAL-CORE 5GHz Pentium 4 to keep up (approximatly) Which no, does not exhist.

Apple switched to Intel for good reason, IBM's roadmap doesnt look so hot, and Intels looks much better. It's not about clock speed anymore, it's about the design of the chip and how it acts. Even intel admits they've hit a roadblock when it comes to pure speed. It's time to go back to basics and look at the architecture.

In terms of available programs there are several to choose from, not as many windows based programs, but still, several. Pretty much any task that a windows program does, there's either a mac version, or another software vender that makes something that generally does the same thing. There are quite a few reasons that their are not as many mac apps. One being market share, obviously. If there arent as many people using them, not everybody is gonna jump in and make software. People are in the software business to make money, so their primary target should be windows. Another fact is, it's pretty easy to program for Windows. Pretty much any bob, tom, or joe can make some software. What this does is make a TON of programs available, and you have about 100 to choose from to do one specific task. This forces you to research and figure out which ones are actually DECENT and which ones will crash your computer. Because there are so many flaws in the Windows OS there's a lot of issues when it comes to programming. Compared to UNIX, you get poor software. Unix programmers have to know what they're doing because it's a lot more difficult to do it. What this does for mac users is create a smaller group of available software but at a much HIGHER quality. I've ran tons of shareware and freeware and have never had a crash or single issue with the way the software ran. If my computer met system requirements, it just WORKS, plain and simple. No crashes, nothing.

People should realize they should purchase the computer that requires no maintence, and actually a computer where the instructs aren't USE, DEFRAG, SCAN FOR VIRUS', SCAN FOR SPYWARE, SCAN FOR ADWARE, OPTIMIZE HARD DRIVE, CHECK FOR ERRORS, SCAN REGISTRY, BACKUP REGISTRY, but instead, simple.. Plug it in, turn it on, use it. My life as well as other intelligent people's are worth too much to waste time with an operating system that must be babysat in order for it to operate correctly.