Author Topic: Why Macs Suck (Read 41,227 times)

f0dder · « **on:** January 18, 2006, 07:26 PM »

Pretty fun video - I certainly loved it

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6553260189868317794

jgpaiva · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:41 PM »

"mac: crash different" LOLOL
That's one greatly frustrated guy! ahahah
Does anyone agree with him?
I've never worked with a mac, but recently i made a paper about apple, and the conclusion i came was that everything with them is really pretty and stuff, but when you get to the point where you need it to so something, it's absurdly limited... (i mean... who buys a ipod shuffle?? if you buy it, please don't kill me

, i only think you made a bad choice

)

f0dder · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:48 PM »

I've only used pretty old macs (ie, before OS X), and not very much - my impression was that it wasn't an extremely stable system, one locking app could bring the entire system down. Even win9x seemed more robust.

And iPods - geez. Looks like bad 70'es scifi beige-and-rounded stuff, I can't stand it.

nudone · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:07 PM »

ooh, oooh, look at me, i bought an apple mac, oooh, ooooh, i bought and ipod. oooh, oooh, i don't care what they do i just want to be cool. i'm so 'different' don't yah know.

i'm into doing graphics and stuff with Adobe software so it's almost mandatory that i own an apple mac - but i don't. they are rubbish, so is the ipod. it's not even a good argument - they don't look good either.

oh yeah, as has been said elsewhere many times i'm sure - what's with the one button mouse. duh.

nudone · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:10 PM »

oh, i forgot, Adobe are moving away from the mac and favouring windows - well, it looks that way to me. i can't wait until these 'objects of classic design' are just pieces in a museum.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:25 PM »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:33 PM »

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:42 PM »

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:47 PM »

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 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:31 PM »

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...

) 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

Rover · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:45 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on January 18, 2006, 09:42 PM

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 purchase 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!

Note: I am not a mac lover! Their new BSD OS looks like fun, but I'm no jobs junkie.
Macs are noted for their higher level of stability over windoze systems. I know of some horror stories from mac users who have installed a really bad program and totally destabilized their systems, but overall, they are much more stable than windoze. The closed architecture is the reason.

In theory, it's a great idea because you can control the way the hardware interacts with the OS, etc. In practice, it make for very expensive 'puters. It also limits outside innovation, which is never good.

Windoze on the other hand, is required to run on any piece of crap that claims to be "compatible." That's about 20% of the reason it crashes... the other 80% is Bill G himself.

For more viewing pleasure, google "three dead trolls" and watch their "Every OS Sucks" music video. The song lead-in is a little long, but it's worth the wait. The "Internet Helpdesk" isn't bad either.

"16 kilobytes of RAM; it was good enough to send men to the moon, it's good enough for you and me."

f0dder · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:51 PM »

OS X isn't based on linux, it's BSD/Mach. Wouldn't surprise me if there's some NextStep stuff in there as well.

As for macs being more stable than windows, ho humm. I've had very few crashes in 2k and XP, and all the showstoppers have been due to bad hardware or bad drivers; never had a BSOD that was windows' fault.

App-level bugs are another thing, of course.

Edvard · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:55 PM »

Quote

all Apple did was to add a skin to Linux.

*ahem*... You meant um, BSD...*ahem*
AKA Darwin

-edit- oops, f0dder beat me to it.

Don't know about the NextStep stuff, I thought Cocoa did all the window management and all...

The funniest thing I've ever heard said about MacOSX: (from our own superboyac)

Quote

I hate the bubbly Mac crap, where everything is from happy bubble-yum land, with their shiny aerodynamic look as if it's going to be faster because there's less wind resistance.

AFAIK the Unix BSD file structure is preserved, just the interface has it's own space there.

f0dder · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:01 PM »

kernel: integrated stuff from Mach 3.0 + BSD 4.4 + more.

GUI: cocoa/nextstep - http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaOverview/Articles/CocoaHistory.html

jgpaiva · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:10 PM »

@ f0dder: Isn't BSD a form of unix? (now i'm confused

)

@ Edvard: definitely, that quote is great, the aerodynamic part is just a perfect description

But i do agree with you, if i come to analyse all the times that win xp collapsed on me, they were almost all derived from an error i made, or a badly designed program.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is something similar to BSOD on OSX?

jpfx · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:13 PM »

as zaine says.. mac==toy

f0dder · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:15 PM »

Yeah, Berkely Software Distribution is a unixen, and has spawns like Free,Open,Net{BSD}. BSD developers tend to seem a bit more competent and structured than linux developers...

Dunno what the Mac OS X equivalent of a BSOD is, but older versions had the "bomb dialog"...

Edvard · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:19 PM »

Quote

does anyone know if there is something similar to BSOD on OSX?

Yep, Segmentation Fault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmentation_fault

:shiver:

mouser · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:23 PM »

i think rover has some good points as well - there are definite benefits to having more control over the system in terms of being able to guaruntee a predictable experience, and enforce a set of standards. and you do have to hand it to apple for spending time worrying about the details. i know some serious people who were very impressed how apple networking stuff "just worked" out of the box.

though i have to say, same people called me for help to fix their network when their mac stopped being able to connect to the network, and my experience was, when it worked, it just worked, but when it didn't work, it just didn't work, and gave very little clue as to why or what you might do to fix it. this is often the price you pay with such stuff - it's designed to be overly friendly and helpful, which is great sometimes, but can be hell when you really need to fix something. linux has a long history of being the opposite. everything is configurable and customizable and accessible, but it can just be overwhelming. i find myself prefering the middle ground.. though i am not a huge fan of microsoft. i think i'm in the "every OS sucks" camp.

mouser · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:27 PM »

for the programmers:
objective-c and objective-c++ the oop languages (alternatives to c++) are getting a lot of attention since Apple acquired Next, which were the main proponents of it. used a lot in mac osx programming.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C

jgpaiva · « **Reply #20 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:29 PM »

@ edvard: It's allways nice when you find one of those in the middle of your 5000 lines of code, and can't trace it's origin

But my question was what was displayed on OSX when it finds a kernel exception. (unbelievable, i could find hundreds of pictures of blue screen of death, but only one on the bomb dialog... If i was a mac supporter, i would say that proves that mac os is more stable. Actually, my real opinion is that win95/98 were bad examples of software

)

Edvard · « **Reply #21 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:31 PM »

I've never even touched a mac and so I have no idea how they handle a segfault, or any errors as far as that goes...
And AFAIK,
Unix came from Bell labs and IBM. The same guys who wrote it are now doing Plan 9.
BSD was Berkely College's version of Unix and is still today considered properly in the Unix family.
Linux was derived from/inspired by Minix, a Unix clone written by one of Linus Torvald's professors.
GNU was Richard Stallman's clone of the Unix system that ran on a Unix kernel.
It was the mating of the last two that produced the infamous OS we all call Linux.

For those interested:
The Unix Family Tree

And what about HyperCard?
:duck & run:

mouser · « **Reply #22 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:33 PM »

if you haven't seen some of the mac osx dashboard stuff though, some of the visuals are damn impressive. it's kind of like those silly computer scenes in movies where someone is checking their email and you are like wtf kind of crazy email system is that with all the visual effects and stuff. mac programmers put in a LOT of effort to make their apps look slick.

mouser · « **Reply #23 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:38 PM »

nice short piece on mac one button mouse with some good comments:
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/why_apple_makes_a_one_buttoned_mouse_01280820/

f0dder · « **Reply #24 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:45 PM »

...and because mac mice ship default with one button, you have to either keep the button pressed for a couple of seconds or do mouse+keyboard combos for at lot of things were a right-click would have sufficed. Slow and kludgy.