Tools

Some things in my life are defined by what they do for me.

Like my computers. I have used every MS OS since DOS as a user. I have used many Apple products. I have fond memories of the Apple ][ series. I played a bit with Geff's Mac SE30 (if I got the model right). I have an iMac running 10.3.9.

I have never been a programmer.

What does the iMac do that none of my Windows machines do? Listen carefully Mac snobs. NOT A SINGLE COCKSUCKING THING! It's a computer you dunderheads! It does nothing I want a computer to do better than any other machine I currently own. There is only one exception where the iMac shines, I can start every single app and it doesn't slow down. THAT IS ALL! That's a big thing, I will grant, but I have not experienced the "magic" that I was led to believe would naturally follow from merely owning one.

"OK Mr Thag, since you hate Macs, what does your vaunted Windows machine do that the iMac doesn't?" asked in a tone that suggests that I will not have an answer. Well, I don't hate Macs! I happen to like my little iMac. But if I want to play a flight sim, I can't with an Apple OS. I can't with Linux either.

What about stability? The more I play with computers at the unwashed user level the more convinced I become that hardware has a lot more to do with it than the OS. Apple has rigidly controlled the hardware for a long time, and my PC desktop is made from some serious parts. The game machine is just as stable as the iMac. The HP laptop is not. Hmmmmm.

I have considered one of the newer Macs, but I keep hitting the price barrier. I can have one hell of a Windows machine (or Linux) for a lot less than a Mac. Becuase I am a high end flight simmer, I know what hardware costs. And Apple is raping you.

Geff has mentioned some really nifty features with OS 10.4. Wanna bet those features get wrapped into what ever OS MS puts out next?

None of this changes that MS is a shitty company. I hate them and hate being forced by my flight sim habit to use an MS OS. The Genuine Advantage BS and Validation shit have made me decide that I will not be moving beyond what I have now for the flight sim.

Apple needs to start charging less to be competitive. Or they need to admit that they aren't trying to be competitive. But they can't do that, SEC regs... And the Mac Zealots need to shut the fuck up. It's not better to the degree they seem to claim. If you listen to them, using a Mac is like fucking and using a PC is like jerking off. THEY ARE WRONG.

By the way, Steve Jobs is every bit as evil as MS and Bill Gates, don't fool yourselves folks. He's just hid his tracks better. And there are damn few companies that are as litigatious as Apple.

The choice is Hitler or Stalin not Jesus or Satan.

Addendum:

I forgot security.

The iMac is running zero malware and anti-virus stuff. It doesn't need it. Macs are inherently more secure than PCs. For the moment.

Linux starts more secure, but I have two examples of managerial feature creep that created exploits. Not a function of the OS to be sure, but illustrative that nobody is immune.

There may come a day when there are so many features in the Mac OS that they get all sorts of exploits just like MS.

I have also read that some of MS problems on exploits is the CUSTOMERS insistence that their old software continue to run with the new OS. That would make it very hard to fix things as cludges are added to keep old software running.

Here's the BUT for the Mac snobs: Just like a prison is inherently more secure than an open field, one can secure a field and empty a prison. Both take real effort to acheive, but it is acheivable. Please stop acting as if XP cannot be made secure and OSX cannot be made vulnerable.

The Mac attitude really reminds me of the Vette attitude among (some) car people. It doesn't matter what my car can do, it's not a Vette.

I know of some exceptions to this attitude. Geff is my friend who likes Macs who doesn't look down his nose at my PC, he just tries to point out what Apple is doing better objectively. Lee is my friend who hates MS, but doesn't act like I'm retarded. He also owns a third gen Vette. John is my friend who owns a fifth gen Vette and uses Linux who will actually talk about the relative advantages of either the cars or the computers. These three are not Mac snobs. They are just about the only three people I know who work with computers and use Linux/OSX who are not acting like I am some sort of leper.

PS, try finding a CAD package for a Mac.

Comments:

8th-Sep-2006 11:38 am (local) - I just like macs

Michele Evermore	Because they are more intuitive for me. I would imagine that's actually not the case for most people, but its always what i have used most and they seem to get about the same shit done. I get irritable a little about their compatibility with a number of video games, but hey. Whatevs.
Reply Thread Link Delete Spam Screen Freeze Track This Select

9th-Sep-2006 09:58 am (local) - Re: I just like macs

mcthag	I have found the difference between PC and Mac interfaces to be similar to the differences between AutoCAD and Microstation. The user who has a preference usually states a preference for the one they learned first (or used the most). But there's nothing long with liking what you are familiar with.
Reply Parent Thread Link Edit Delete Screen Freeze Track This Select

8th-Sep-2006 01:18 pm (local)

ravenclaw_eric

I'm with McThag...my learned colleague is quite right about PCs' advantages. If Apple Computer had been run by people who were business people, instead of computer geeks (nothing against computer geeks, but "computer geek" and "savvy businessperson" are different skill-sets, not often found in the same person) the Mac might be the dominant platform---and the hackers, damn them, would be busily working on viruses and other nastiness tailored for Macs. For _some specific uses,_ a Mac is much superior...mostly having to do with graphics. Knowing nothing about graphics, I'm happy with a plain-vanilla PC.

Reply Thread Link Delete Spam Screen Freeze Track This Select

8th-Sep-2006 04:59 pm (local) - The results are in

Anonymous

It's a widely-held belief: Microsoft isn't incompetent, just popular; if somebody else were the popular choice, the new leader would show as many security problems as Windows. It turns out, however, that such is not the case. End-user operating systems are not the only security-relevant field where Microsoft is trying to compete. Another such market is web servers, where Microsoft's IIS is plainly behind Apache. This makes web servers a perfect test case, and Microsoft fails. The market leader is well known to be more secure than Microsoft's also-ran. How can this be, if Microsoft is competent at security?

Reply Parent Thread Link Delete Spam Screen Freeze Track This Select

9th-Sep-2006 09:50 am (local) - Re: The results are in

mcthag

I am not making the "Microsoft isn't incompetent, just popular" arguement. But they are popular. No denying it. Macs aren't. What this does, on a practical level is allow Apple to throw away the entire OS and start from scratch when they do a new one. They have a much smaller client base that is willing to buy all new applications at the same time they are buying the new computer and its attendant OS. MS is carrying huge business clients who have indicated that if they had to buy all new apps anyway, why not give Mac a try? So MS made goddamn sure the old apps worked without setting up anything special. You can run DOS apps under XP. To run Apple ][ stuff on a Mac you have to run an emulator. Here's the incompetence part for MS: The OS team ALWAYS starts assuming clean slate. Then other teams add the creeping features. Then other teams add the backward compatibility. Pretty soon it's a mess. And because no single group is responsible within the company, "Not my problem," rules. Where MS really shines is convincing the customer that all that feature creep is desireable. It's also funny that what they do wrong and what they do right got them nailed in court the one time they inverted it. Integrating some of the features (reduced bugs, really did) got them nailed with anti-trust. Something the Linux community misses about the average computer owner, they are LAZY with a capital fucking Lethargic. Why go to the effort of putting a disk in the cup holder if it already came with the OS? Someone at MS noticed this tendency, so you got things like Internet Explorer as part of the OS. So, what we have is a combination of just competent enough to work with too lazy to seek better and unwilling to pay for better anyway. That is the MS side. Mac side is works great! But costs about triple what a comparable system does on MS and about 40% more than it should anyway. Linux, works, but you are pretty much on your own getting it up and running. The hardware is cheap as MS and software even cheaper. So, our three schools: Cheap and Lazy will go to MS. Lazy, but well heeled goes Mac. Cheap and energetic goes Linux. Is everyone reading insulted now?

Reply Parent Thread Link Edit Delete Screen Freeze Track This Select

10th-Sep-2006 05:04 pm (local) - Re: The results are in

Anonymous

I am not making the "Microsoft isn't incompetent, just popular" arguement. No, but Eric did. As does pretty much everybody[1] I try to discuss Microsoft security with. The underlying OS in MacOS X is an open source not-Unix(tm) Unix, which is a huge part of Apple's security advantage, and it really bothers me when people dismiss good design proven by thirty years of hard experience. Your backwards compatibility and feature creep arguments do make sense with Windows; that's why I used web servers, where they don't. Yes, business reasons have led Microsoft's OS unit to set themselves a harder technical problem than Apple or the Linux hivemind have to deal with[2]. No, that doesn't excuse all of their security failings. Even if it did, the failings remain. I expect that your "not my problem" explanation for Microsoft's security problems is correct. If they can correct that, and fix several other problems, then maybe they could make an OS I'd be willing to use. Perhaps, but not today. So, our three schools: Cheap and Lazy will go to MS. Lazy, but well heeled goes Mac. Cheap and energetic goes Linux. Is everyone reading insulted now? You left out BSD (which they should find pretty insulting, so I guess you're covered after all). The abridged version: not as popular or user friendly as Linux, but the OpenBSD flavor has the best security you can get. [1] Seriously. You are, to date, the only exception. Also, when I present my web server argument, none of them either attempt a counter argument or accept my conclusion. [2] Linux especially, since Apple has made a point of silently emulating the immediately previous version each time they start over on hardware or software. It doesn't always work flawlessly, but I've only experienced two failures in three blank slates, and one of them was a copy-protected video game.

Reply Parent Thread Link Delete Spam Screen Freeze Track This Select

11th-Sep-2006 09:47 am (local) - Re: The results are in

mcthag

I have found some reasons why there are no flight sims for Macs (anymore). 1. Apple is not very forthcoming with the information needed to port the game over. 2. PC makers are paying what amounts to bribes to distrubutors (ever wonder how a shitty company like UbiSoft became successful?). The bribes usually come with a "no Apple version" understanding. So we have Compaq/HP/Dell/Gateway actively courting the market and Apple saying, "It's superior in all ways people will buy it even if they can't do what they wanted the computer for in the first place." WHAT?!? And the best proof I have seen that something artificial like this is going on in sim land is most flight sims are Open GL. You know, the native graphics format Macs use? Porting it over would be relatively simple. I think that Apple would be well served by becoming a patron to some developers, bypassing the distributors. I suspect that MS needs a few simple things to happen to make a secure OS. First their corporate culture allows for mistakes of epic scale. It is an environment where competent people produce incompetent work because the structure of the workplace forces it. For the corporate culture to change some key people need to be removed from managerial control and never allowed to return. Apple's two biggest barriers to success are 1) Not wanting to be much more than they are now. 2) The fucking patchouli smelling Mac Snobs. After dealing with one my fingers ITCH for an MS OS under my keyboard and I want to write checks to Seattle whorehouses to "service" the kind and benevolent Mr Gates. Then I write huge debate starting screeds on my blog. I wonder if Bill liked the handjob I sent him...

Reply Parent Thread Link Edit Delete Screen Freeze Track This Select

9th-Sep-2006 10:00 am (local)

mcthag	Mac will never be dominate. They don't seek that market. They are quite happy being a niche product. And Apple is really an personal stereo manufacturer that also makes computers now. iPod and iTunes (anti-trust coming soon) are what is making them money.
Reply Parent Thread Link Edit Delete Screen Freeze Track This Select

9th-Sep-2006 01:01 pm (local) - Antitrust

ravenclaw_eric	And when the Justice Department comes for Apple, the same people who cheered them on against Microsoft will, all of a sudden, discover that the antitrust laws are a Bad Thing...and I'll be giggling.
Reply Parent Thread Link Delete Spam Screen Freeze Track This Select

27th-Sep-2006 10:15 am (local)

Anonymous

For the record: 1) Apple does not win the graphics war any longer. My Intel PC Running MS XP64 Pro and using a grand total of $700 worth of state-of-the-art hardware kicks the pants off a new $2000 Mac in the category of graphics performance. 2) Security is a non-issue. A poor computer user can easily get a computer infected essentially beyond repair, regardless of the OS. A competent computer user can keep a computer clean and secure essentially regardless of the OS. This can actually be much harder for the competent user of Mac or Linux Operating Systems, but this is usually counteracted by the vastly lower incidence of attack against those systems. 3) In case anyone is curious, my Genuine Intel P4D Dual 3.0 Ghz 64Bit machine runs Mac OS 10.3 just fine (dual boot with XP). Maybe none of you cares, but I just had to find out. It can be done, and it feels dirrrrty. I even used Tiger as my "primary" OS for a few weeks, to see if I felt cooler. It was fine for browsing the web. But I had to keep switching back to play any of my games, or use any of my (ahem... free ahem...) applications like Photoshop or Office. So eventually I just ended up staying in XP all the time anyway.