Why do some people hate Apple/Mac? - Page 2

kstar · 03-06-2008, 10:18 AM

Also, debating hardware is really like talking about car bodies, leather and trim levels - the OS is where the debate should be, IMO.

Best,

Kurt

dd74 · 03-06-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowToady

SUN hardware and Solaris is clearly superior to Mac hardware and software. Why aren't you using it?

Proprietary software that may not run on Solaris is my understanding.

stomachmonkey · 03-06-2008, 10:22 AM

Is a $2000 Alienware box better than a $600 Acer?

dd74 · 03-06-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Also, debating hardware is really like talking about car bodies, leather and trim levels - the OS is where the debate should be, IMO.

Best,

Kurt

Okay. Mac runs Windows just fine.

kstar · 03-06-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

Okay. Mac runs Windows just fine.

Yup, and Linux.

Best,

Kurt

SlowToady · 03-06-2008, 10:26 AM

The same could be said for Mac OS. Which was exactly my point --Windows, Mac OS, Solaris, VMS, et al, none of them are end all solutions. There is no "perfect setup" for everyone, regardless of what proponents of either, or *any*, camp, might think.

Who knows, maybe Java takes off even further, and we don't have that problem any more....

(I doubt it.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

Proprietary software that may not run on Solaris is my understanding.

Mule · 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Small number of tasks? That's simply not true, Mule.

I've always stated that machines is machines, YMMV.

At least the folks who are enjoying their Macs have a REASON to be fanboys - you anti-Mac zealots are just whining about nothing.

Best,

Kurt

If you can point out something besides low end graphic applications that Macs have an edge on please feel free to do so. Mac conceded the business arena to those boring pc's long ago. High end graphics require a Sun or Solaris type machine. Until not very long ago, an '84 model Atari 1040st running Toaster blew Macs away on video editing. So what exactly is their niche?

dd74 · 03-06-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Yup, and Linux.

Best,

Kurt

Very true.

SlowToady · 03-06-2008, 10:27 AM

In that case, SUN hardware will run Linux, Solaris, and Windows. Straight from SUN. I would even wager Darwin would run on SUN hardware, but not without some rather involved hacking.

dd74 · 03-06-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mule

If you can point out something besides low end graphic applications that Macs have an edge on please feel free to do so. Mac conceded the business arena to those boring pc's long ago. High end graphics require a Sun or Solaris type machine.

Um. You better check that. Most of "SpaceJam" was done with Macs. A lot of Pixar movies use Mac too. From animation to voice over and effects, I have never seem a Sun/Solaris type machine.

Mule · 03-06-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

Um. You better check that. Most of "SpaceJam" was done with Macs. A lot of Pixar movies use Mac too. From animation to voice over and effects, I have never seem a Sun/Solaris type machine.

So do you really want to take the position that Macs outperform high end unix graphics machines? You're sounding like wiwb.

legion · 03-06-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowToady

The big plus on Windows, for me, is the wide spread proliferation of any sort of software I need, and, the biggest plus: Visual Studio. There is not a development platform from Apple than can touch it. Xcode? Yea, right, give me a break.

For those of us who do hardcore development, there is not a lot out there for the Mac. Yes, I know I can run Windows on a Mac, but then what's the point in paying twice as much for the Mac?

svandamme · svandamme's Garage

MAC was the graphical geek thing for many years
and other then that, it was pretty much useless

- no games
- not much software available
- hardware monopoly
- expensive
- poor network capabilities and compatibilities out of the box

sure it was superior then Wintel
just like a Tiger tank was superior to a Sherman

but put 4 Shermans against the Tiger, and that was it for the Tiger
Superiority of one doesn't mean jack when mass volume kicks in

Ipods aren't that good either, they just look more decent then 99% of the competition
- cannot delete tunes on the ipod
- they get stuck
- cannot really do nothing practical with playlists once you disconnect the bloody thing from itunes
- without itunes, you loose functionalitt

so yeah, superior, in looks
it's like a hot blonde bimbo, everybody wants one
and a lot of people just get tired of her **** when they finally get one

all this crap about MAc's being better
My pc doesn't reboot unless there's a power failure, it's running XP pro
it runs like a charm, does everything i want from it, including Adobe Photoshop high res multilayer editing.. i never get any virusses, never get any kind of problems with antyhing really, so what can a MAC do, that i can't do on my Wintel?? aside from maybe looking like it's designed to look good ( as if i care what my puter looks like, it's tucked away under my desk, and mt screen looks just as design as any tft Mac screen would)

Mule · 03-06-2008, 10:43 AM

Does this help you guys understand why Macs only have 6% of the market? Smart does have something to do with it, just not what ya'll were thinking.

kstar · 03-06-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mule

So do you really want to take the position that Macs outperform high end unix graphics machines? You're sounding like wiwb.

Apple makes high-end Unix workstations, FYI.

Best,

Kurt

kstar · 03-06-2008, 10:51 AM

Some of guys have a very good memory of Apple in 1997 but not very good knowledge of Apple in 2008.

Market share argument?

Best,

Kurt

lendaddy · 03-06-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

I agree, though I haven't noticed as much holier than thou attitude from Mac users as often as the same from Windows users. Mac users, conversely, seem to think Windows users are simply out of touch.

lol, you must be joking.

It's not the product. It's a lot like those bumper stickers that say:

Dear Jesus, please save me from your followers."

SlowToady · 03-06-2008, 11:08 AM

And, Java 1.6 is not available for Mac, because Apple decided they didn't want to do/deal with it. So if you happen to be a Java developer, Mac OS + Java isn't going to work for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

For those of us who do hardcore development, there is not a lot out there for the Mac. Yes, I know I can run Windows on a Mac, but then what's the point in paying twice as much for the Mac?

svandamme · svandamme's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Some of guys have a very good memory of Apple in 1997 but not very good knowledge of Apple in 2008.

Market share argument?

Best,

Kurt

walk into your average company
factory, or regular office workers

and i assure you, they don't work on mac's

go into your average house, not rich people, just run of the mill factory workers, office workers

you might see a bit more mac's, but still not much

what's their market share now?? 6%??

woop ti doo , that's definitely impressive , landslide victory !

71T Targa · 03-06-2008, 11:08 AM

I don't really hate my mac even though I may have said that in the past. It's just that every time I try and use it for more than a web browser or iTunes I have some type of compatibility issue. More often than not I just switch over to my laptop and get on with my life.