MAC Haters

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
The worst part about macs are the users behind them.

Personal insults. Fun

Everyone I have met has been smug and rude.

How many Mac users do you know? How many Microsoft professionals do you know? Look at some of Ameesh's posts. HE can be smug and rude (no offence meant because I like reading Ameesh's posts ). Talk to other Microsoft professionals. Working techsupport back in the day, I talked to *many* MCSE's that thought they were the best. Many, if not most, of them were idiots. They were smug and rude and I made many of them look like bitches. You get those people everywhere.

If you need to service a PC, yes a x86 computer not a fvkcing PPC which are only considered PCs by Mac users,

Or anyone that knows what PC stands for (personal computer) and realizes this applies to basically any desktop machine.

the tell you stupid sh!t like: "If it was a mac it woudn't have broke."

Anyone who said that is an idiot.

Yeah, Macs are magical computers, which have hardware that doesn't break.

Heh.

 

[Torghn]

We all know Macs dont have many games, and are too slow to play most of them.

Exactly, that's why they suck.

Definition of suck: Unable to play most computer games.

 

[FordFreak]

Woohoo, I love bashing Mac. The biggest thing I hate Mac for is low compatability. I also hate the baby size mouse and KB.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: FordFreak
Woohoo, I love bashing Mac. The biggest thing I hate Mac for is low compatability.

yeah thats why I hate linux too....I cant run all my windows programs on it.

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Originally posted by: sward666
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the crappy mouse.

LOL, good one.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Honorable Organization of Macintosh Operators.

Sorry, I could not resist.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Mac users still don't address the fundamental issue of PRICE. A top of the line PC will smoke a top of the line Mac, in EVERYTHING (there is nothing that the Mac can beat the PC at when using top-of-the-line systems). Thus, there is no compelling reason to go with a Mac. Plus, OSX is not as stable as you Mac users claim (it crashes just as much as windows does). A PC is also fully upgradable, and thus a wiser investment. A Mac is not fully upgradable and will become obsolete and outdated quicker than a PC will (granted both will become obsolete quite quickly). You can also DO MORE on a freakin PC, you Mac users have no compelling arguments anymore. You can't run programs faster, you can't run more programs than a windows user can, your OS isn't more stable than WINXP or Win2k is, and your Mac's cost a hell of a lot more. That's why Apple will never own more than 5% of the market share.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

oh yea, Mac users are also ugly.

 

[AncientPC]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
It's not that MAC's suck (cuz they don't), it's that PC's are just plain better.

nik (likes OSX)

That pretty much sums up my opinion.

 

[Nothinman]

Mac users still don't address the fundamental issue of PRICE

I don't think anyone said Macs were cheaper. Most would probably liken it to buying a Ford or an Infinity.

OSX is not as stable as you Mac users claim (it crashes just as much as windows does)

Not true. Recent versions of NT are pretty stable, but OS X in general is stable as hell, it's based on unix afterall.

A PC is also fully upgradable, and thus a wiser investment. A Mac is not fully upgradable and will become obsolete and outdated quicker than a PC will

Yea damn Macs with their proprietary IDE hard drives, SDRAM, PCI cards, etc.

You can also DO MORE on a freakin PC, you Mac users have no compelling arguments anymore. You can't run programs faster, you can't run more programs than a windows user can,

Actually since OS X is built on unix it can now run all the regular Mac programs + most unix programs. So the software library for OS X has grown exponentially just because of it's roots.

Price is the only problem, otherwise I'd own a TiBook and maybe more Mac hardware. A dual G4 1Ghz with 2M cache would kick a dual 1Ghz PCs ass unless you pay the ~$1K for each Xeon with 2M cache on them.

 

[Lucky]

Price is the only problem,

Yep...and that darn mouse!

 

[CraigRT]

I hate them.. we have 3 or 4 here. they are completely overpriced, and they are not fast. hence sh1tty.

 

[Nothinman]

Yep...and that darn mouse!

But if you plug in a USB wheel mouse all 3 buttons work and the wheel, without even a reboot.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yep...and that darn mouse!

But if you plug in a USB wheel mouse all 3 buttons work and the wheel, without even a reboot.

that was a joke...read the whole thread and you'll see I've been one of the more ardent supporters of the Mac.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Mac users still don't address the fundamental issue of PRICE

I don't think anyone said Macs were cheaper. Most would probably liken it to buying a Ford or an Infinity.

OSX is not as stable as you Mac users claim (it crashes just as much as windows does)

Not true. Recent versions of NT are pretty stable, but OS X in general is stable as hell, it's based on unix afterall.

A PC is also fully upgradable, and thus a wiser investment. A Mac is not fully upgradable and will become obsolete and outdated quicker than a PC will

Yea damn Macs with their proprietary IDE hard drives, SDRAM, PCI cards, etc.

You can also DO MORE on a freakin PC, you Mac users have no compelling arguments anymore. You can't run programs faster, you can't run more programs than a windows user can,

Actually since OS X is built on unix it can now run all the regular Mac programs + most unix programs. So the software library for OS X has grown exponentially just because of it's roots.

Price is the only problem, otherwise I'd own a TiBook and maybe more Mac hardware. A dual G4 1Ghz with 2M cache would kick a dual 1Ghz PCs ass unless you pay the ~$1K for each Xeon with 2M cache on them.

I see your points, but still the price vs. performance ratio is NOT there.


If I had a p4 2.8GHZ 533FSB with a GB of RAM and scsi all around, and had the same peripheral configuration on a mac, regardless of which was the fastest machine, both machines would still provide excellent performance, and in the case of business, the x86 machines would free up funds to buy even more machines.


Macs are nice, but it is very easy to see why they are not "better"

-They are not exponentially faster.
-There is NO GENERAL TASK that CaNNOT be somehow done a pc..except proprietary stuff..I mean general programming, not programming apple script et cetera.
-They are not equally as upgradeable. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is FACT.


In general MACS ARE NOT BETTER

They are "DIFFERENT"

There is no point in promting Mac stuff because MOST LIKLEY pcs can do it. THen again, vice versa. THere are always exceptions, but I assume I have covered the jist of it.

IT is apples and oranges, and people still waste their time.


Why do I own pcs then?

Because I grew up poor.
My mother wanted to make sure I learned something, so when I was young she bought me a pc.
I learned A LOT.


Why do I like them?

-THey are dirt cheap.
- I am the kind of person who loves to mess with things...be it my car, computer, refrigerator vcr....etc .
I have fixed everything from COmputers to bikes to vcrs to recievers to speakers on my own.


So ...


I just ran out of words...

I'll get back to you...


THat and I don't want to get flamed with my last statement

 

[silent tone]

I don't think anyone said Macs were cheaper. Most would probably liken it to buying a Ford or an Infinity.

I think it's best if we avoid analogies when the parties discussing the issue are fairly well versed. It almost always introduces false perceptions of the two domains being compared.

Yea damn Macs with their proprietary IDE hard drives, SDRAM, PCI cards, etc.

I think the issue is that Apple generally discourages upgrading. You have to buy a $1700 powermac to get a few pci slots and a whopping 2 external drive bays. Let's not forget the performance hit you're going to take running osX without new hardware, and if you want to run quartz extreme you have to have a 3d card. Then there was the g4 upgrade trojan that apple released a while back.

Actually since OS X is built on unix it can now run all the regular Mac programs + most unix programs. So the software library for OS X has grown exponentially just because of it's roots.

This is great for apple but, if you're running windows you don't really ever have to worry if there is a port for windows or windows drivers for some device. If there is some server or unix app that doesn't run under windows, free linux is cheaper than new mac + osX.

A dual G4 1Ghz with 2M cache would kick a dual 1Ghz PCs ass unless you pay the ~$1K for each Xeon with 2M cache on them.

That would be true with altivec optimized apps but this comparison isn't relevant. I couldn't find a dual 1ghz p3 for sale, but I bet it would be significantly cheaper than the $3000 apple wants for theirs. You also seem to be confused that 2MB of 1/2 speed L3 cache is some performance savior. It's actually there to hide the performance of pc133 ram.

 

[Occifer]

Check out this article at The Inquirer.

PORTLY APPLE SUPREMO Steve iJobs today announced a new initiative which he claimed will consign the WinTel PC to history. "The iDiot? scheme is brilliant in its conceptual elegance and is available in six exciting colours," said Jobs at iApple iExpo i2002 at iNew iYork.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

x86 machines aren't all that cheap if you buy windows, Office, or any adobe software. IMO they are only dirt cheap when you buy open source software...

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: TheOmegaCode
x86 machines aren't all that cheap if you buy windows, Office, or any adobe software. IMO they are only dirt cheap when you buy open source software...

or pirate your software, which a good amount of people in this thread do I'd guess.

 

[ElFenix]

i hate MAC... regardless of how i try to hide my IP the only way i can keep from getting tracked is to keep switching MACs all the time... gets expensive.

 

[skace]

Not true. Recent versions of NT are pretty stable, but OS X in general is stable as hell, it's based on unix afterall.

I'd love to hear your research that leads you to believe that NT 5.0 is "pretty stable" and OSX is "stable as hell". In fact, You might even sell my entire company to upgrade to macs instead of our current model which plans to go to 2K in the coming year.

Now, just exactly how stable IS hell?

As I see it, my 2K machine does every task imaginable, from photoshop, to video editing, to mp3 ripping, to dvd making, to office applications, to web browsing, to video games. Even after all these tasks, it has a current uptime of 1 week 6 days. The last time my Win2k machine crashed was due to an overheat since the temperature in my room was around 108 degrees F. It blue screened twice in that weather and I had to let it cool down. I am sure the heat and the 90% humidity wasn't good for it, and if I was smart I probably should have shut it off, but eh, I left it running... 24/7. Anyways, before those 2 blue screens, my machine was up for several months - since the last required reboot for an install. I do not understand how this constitutes "pretty stable". Perhaps "stable as hell" would have survived the 108 degree f weather and 90% humidity, although I doubt it.

My point is, I think both Mac OSX users and Win2k/XP users can agree that both operating systems are stable. They crash when an unknown and rare occurance happens and not during normal practice. I am basing the OSX part of that comment on the users here who seem to have it and are saying so. I would love to buy both systems premade and sit them side by side and see which one crashes during normal use, but I do not have the time nor money to pull off such a feat. So, I will take the mac users word that it is stable and combine it with my knowledge that 2k is stable.

In other words, your comment was off base.

Noc, you believed the quote the end of my post was perfectly fine, and that shows where you stand, no further need to comment on that. Your PS2 + Mac combo are deffinitely better than just my PC (even though... I also own a Ps2...).

 

[Nothinman]

IT is apples and oranges, and people still waste their time.

I'm just bored at work, what's your excuse =)

You also seem to be confused that 2MB of 1/2 speed L3 cache is some performance savior. It's actually there to hide the performance of pc133 ram.

I don't even own a Mac, but I down a 600Mhz Alpha and I can tell you that adding 2M of L3 cache to it doubled performance of CPU intensive applications.

If there is some server or unix app that doesn't run under windows, free linux is cheaper than new mac + osX.

Yes but even though I'm a Linux user I realize that not everything runs on it, with OS X you can have a free DHCP/DNS server (without buying OS X Server) in the form of dhcpd and bind and run iTunes and Photoshop.

I couldn't find a dual 1ghz p3 for sale, but I bet it would be significantly cheaper than the $3000 apple wants for theirs.

For a complete system I doubt it would be significantly cheaper. Everyone keeps comparing home-grown x86 boxes to Apples, which you can't do. You can compare Compaq or Dell pre-made boxes to Apple and yes they're still cheaper, but not nearly as much as I can build a box myself.

or pirate your software, which a good amount of people in this thread do I'd guess.

Hopefully that will change. I'm rooting for MS to get WPA working in a nearly non-breakable manner and I hope other commercial systems adopt it or a similar system.

 

[Nothinman]

I'd love to hear your research that leads you to believe that NT 5.0 is "pretty stable" and OSX is "stable as hell".

My research consists of general use by people less tech-savy than myself.

In fact, You might even sell my entire company to upgrade to macs instead of our current model which plans to go to 2K in the coming year.

If all your software runs on OS X, why not consider it?

 

[mpitts]

OK, I have avoided expressing my opinion on this for too long.

Let me preface this by saying I am a lifelong Windows user. I also use and admin Linux boxes at home/work, but the curiosity of OSX finally got the better of me.

I just picked up a used G4 tower. 350Mhz with the Pro mouse (one button) and keyboard. The first thing I did when I got it was wipe the hard drive and install OSX. Then I hooked it up to my USB KVM with a three button IntelliMouse optical and standard PS/2 keyboard and it worked perfectly. I like the Pro keyboard and mouse, but I definitely prefer the wheel mouse with a right-click button.

Here are my opinions on the OS:

Tightly integrated - All Mac freaks generally talk about how great it is that the apps work so closely together and how the intergration is a positive. These are generally the same people who complain about Microsoft and their "monopolistic" tactics, and how they force things down their throat that they don't want. Personally, I like how the apps work together and the overall feel of the OS. It is actually VERY intuitive. When trying to accomplish something in OSX, I tend to overthink the process and make it MUCH harder than it needs to be. From shortcuts to unmounting volumes, etc.

Looks great - It definitely looks nice. From the large icons, the magnifying dock, etc, it looks really nice. It is obvious that a lot of thought and time went into designing the look and feel of the OS.

BSD - Being a linux dork/admin, this is awesome. It is a little different than the linux shell, and the commands vary, but the overall experience is basically the same. It is the part of the OS that most Mac people rave about, but I would wager they have never really learned to use. It definitely lends itself to the stability of the OS, which bring me to my next point

Stability - I haven't had any problems. It has stayed up and I have only recieved a couple error messages when running apps. I wouldn't say it is more or less stable than a Win2K/XP environment. I think that a lot of Mac users tend to think of stability as one of the main selling points of the OS, but their concept of Windows stability is the complete lack thereof in Win9x OSes. Most of the Mac users that I have dealt with have never used Win2K/XP, and therefore don't make a good comparison when it comes to stability.


So, overall, the conclusion I came to was this;

Do I like the OS? Yes.

Do I like it better than 2K/XP? No, but that could be due to the fact that I know them inside and out, and am just learning OSX.

Will a Mac become my main machine? No. I like it and already want to upgrade, but the biggest problem I have with Apple is the cost of their hardware for what you get. It is EXPENSIVE. If they lowered their prices, or sold components so you could build your own, I would probably be much more inclined to get another one. I think a lot of PC people think the same thing.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

When it comes down to it, there are simply no compelling arguments for a new buyer to go for a Mac over a PC, PERIOD. End of discussion, both OS's are equally stable, PC's are faster and cheaper, PC's can run more software, and PC's are more upgradable. Did i mention PC's are cheaper?