Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Why Macs Suck

<< < (2/11) > >>

Carol Haynes:
Back in the 80s I ran various computer systems and networks in a college. One of the networks was an Appletalk system with dozens of the old style 'Macs' (the sort of thing that looked a bit like a stumpy concrete post with a screen on one side).

I have to say they were a nightmare to manage as a network - apple bombs were incredibly common (despite Apple's claims of a stable OS).

I think since Mac OSX came out things have been a lot better in general - but then they should because all Apple did was to add a skin to Linux.

The old chestnut about needing a Mac for serious graphics, video or publishing work is now nonsense as functionally equivalent software exists on both Mac and Windows platforms (esp. Quark and Adobe stuff which are pretty much industry standard in those fields).

I have to say in defence of Macs that until Windows became a serious interface - especially in terms of WYSIWYG printing Mac really did outstrip Windows. The turning point was really the introduction of TrueType Fonts to windows since before that what you printed never properly matched what was on screen. Now Windows printer drivers do what they are supposed to do there is no real contest.

Windows based machines are just so much more flexible - there is a huge base of software aimed at all levels and an enormous base of compatible hardware. Sure you can do most things on MAcOS and Linux if you really want to but neither yet have the true flexibility - which is not Windows led but market led.

It is interesting to see that Apple are now porting MacOSX to Intel/Windows hardware - how long is it going to be before they start offering a system that runs both MacOSX and Windows on the same box without emulators - and MacOSX PCI cards to run on current PCs.

Comments in the news suggest that they will avoid this course of action but I really can't see how they will survive into the future without grwoth and the only way to try and grow the servely restricted Mac market is to open up their options and try and temp Windows users without the need to buy new hardware.

I wouldn't be surprised either to see MacOSX competing with Linux on Intel systems - that has to be a softer target for them to aim at than Microsoft - and would potentially increase their market share by seducing non-techy Linux users into their way of thinking. Hell some hardcore Linux users might be sucked in if the offer was right since they could still ostensibly remain loyal to their Linux roots.

What do others think ???

mouser:
i'm a long time mac hater but i try not to let it show too bad - and that's a great video.

the cult of personality stuff and the focus on marketing is just too much for me.  a one button round mouse? sorry that's all i need to know to know it's not the company for me.

i know a lot of programmers who like os X.  i personally like the idea of it, and i'm very impressed with it, but find all the focus on movie-style fancy graphics way over the top.

Carol Haynes:
To be fair OSX lets you trim down the interface to a very bald level, and the one button mouse was used because you don't really need more buttons on a Mac (OK they would be handy but because the menu bar is always along the top of the screen you don't need to right click nearly as much).

Think about it Windows XP has a pretty Mickey Mouse look aimed at the kiddies and grannies until you clear away a lot of the crap.

The thing I really hate about Apple's philosphy is that it doesn't let you use your system the way you want to. Until fairly recently you had to pruchase specialised tools just to open the box. Generally hardware addons have always been very restricted - not by drivers but by the way the damn things have to be fitted! Who designed the stupid Martian look (the globe with an LCD screen floating above) which then needs all parts fitted to have curved profiles - which of course are only generally available from Apple distributors at hugely inflated prices. It used to really annoy me that you had to buy Apple printers in the old days (at least they have had the sense to open up taht market). I remember the old Apple StyleWrite which used to be nearly three times the price of an Epson dot matrix and half the quality.

OK standard Windows boxes don't look so cute in your lounge but at least you can buy the components you want and build it from scratch in half an hour.

mouser:
i agree, the closed nature of apple products has been something they have stuck with and been extremely reluctant to let go of, from their early mac's to their ipods with non-changeable batteries.

jgpaiva:
Great post Carol!
Now i have a few more arguments to "counter-attack" when some mac-lover friend of mine says that windows/intel sucks ;)
The thing is, i think that when mac osx (or maybe the next one) comes for intel-based computers, it even might be a nice thing, because as much as i know, altough apple's hardware is bad and extremely monopolized (i didn't know about that printer thing.. *gee* that's bad!), the OS is the good thing about their systems, not only because it's stable, but also because it has everything you need and is user friendly (again, as i said before, i never tried it, I'm just talking based on what i read and was told).
I already knew osx was based on unix, but is it only a linux "facelift"? Does it have that unix's structure and way of work?
I thought it was much more user-friendly..

About their mice... I think that the one-button mice doesn't work that way, i think that there is the possibility of using the both buttons on OSX, but you use the right button less (or am i missinformed?)
Some time ago, i was needing a mouse, and almost got convinced in buying a mightymouse (they're so cute... :D ) but the first review i saw about them, i think it even was on apple store, the owner said that because the buttons were pressure-sensitive, it happened a lot clicking in places not wanted..Needless to say, i gave up on apple's mice. It's not the first time this has happened to me, some time ago, i wanted to buy a portable audio player, and the first thought was an ipod. So, i checked ipod mini, and it seemed nice. Then i found out about creative zen micro. It had more capacity,  better sound, better compatibility, fm radio, and was cheaper! This made me wonder: why does apple still sell ipods? Is their unique intend to cheat the costumer?
Then, one friend of mine (one mac-lover) saw me listening to my zen and asked me to see it and commented "what a rip-off!" i asked him why did he say that, but he didn't answer me... I guess that those people think that ipod is a better audio player only because it's "ipod"! I guess that, at least apparently, there aren't any better reasons..

So, my point is: is there any reason why you would like to buy a piece of hardware that:
1) is more expensive then the non-mac equivalent (usually, MUCH MORE!)
2) is less featured then the non-mac equivalent (usually, MUCH MORE!)
3) is less compatible then the non-mac equivalent (bla bla)
4) is less upgradeable then the non-mac equivalent (@mouser: good point about the ipods not having the capability to change the battery)
5) possibly (arguably, as beauty is subjective) is more "good looking" then the non-mac equivalent

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page