Why Macs Suck BALLS

[Enterprise-D]

I won't disagree. It took a good 30-40 seconds to for me to learn how to properly type "sudo" prior to executing a command in terminal or understanding that I need to install a utility that would give me root access in Nautilus without letting my wife or daughter have it on their login. My 7-year old, by the way, figured out how to log my desktop off and log into her own in a single session. When she was 6.

This is a comparison of two people against the rest of the planet. Your own experience will not lend to the abilities of other people that I've encountered.

Further, these are extremely basic functions and not a true comparison. Here is a screenshot of Damn Small Linux:

Could you imagine the questions as this screen is presented to a less than technical user who wishes to try out Linux for the first time? What the heck is MonkeyWeb? What is a wlcard?

I believe it was the plain vanilla wrapper of Ubuntu. But I'm going off of memory based on a podcast of Security Now or This Week In Tech.

And the comparison only proves that the particular version of the Ubuntu Linux distribution is more secure that MacOS and Windows. It lends no proof to any other version - that may include flaws introduced by a Joe Individual developer.

Very little is actually free unless you turn to pure Open Source from SourceForge.net or a similar source. There are "trial" versions of many of the popular software packages, but unless you're willing to steal from the corporations, they require eventual purchase to continue to use or to unlock/obtain features that are "premium."

I do beg to differ. There are enough free titles to enable a decent use of a Windows PC. Further, many titles are HARDLY expensive. Although with the downturn in the economy, I imagine everything is going to be considered costly.

I will say, however, that I do miss WinAmp. There are a few up-and-comers in the Open Source/Linux community, however, that will undoubtedly rival WinAmp's current build. But WinAmp went through many, many builds to get there.

It is quite an effective (and free) application huh? I still have it even though Windows Media Player can do everything I use Winamp for.

I'm not "evangelizing" Linux by any means (to use a trope of the word). I'm saying that the days where Linux distros were only useful to the geek and nerd that was willing to spend countless hours tweaking his build are gone. Out of the box distributions are very good and easy to run. Wine permits the use of many software titles like Photoshop if you already own it (I do and use it in under Wine and it functions seamlessly in Linux) and many Linux titles exist that are more than just functional -indeed some applications have features that Windows apps just don't compete with.

And why would I use a virtualized environment and possibly introduce bugs that I'd have to go trawling for weeks for in forums...when Windows OEM is fairly inexpensive? Or a Dell/HP desktop with a valid Windows license is more easily obtainable than years past?

That may have been true just a few years ago, but there are many, many apps that compete very strongly with their windows equivalents. Perhaps that would be a good thread topic -I hate to admit I've somewhat gone way off topic here.

True, since I ardently disagree that the Open Source community has come up with enough titles to even warrant me switching.

I've used Gimp and prefer Photoshop, but that's because I already know how to do everything I want to in PS. If I were just starting out in a graphics application, Gimp would be my choice since I could have saved a couple hundred dollars. It does just about everything PS can do and without the cost.

I've used GIMP, and it cannot. And the interface was excessively annoying.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a big supporter of a well designed user interface. I have reached the point where my opinion is that an interface should take no more than mere minutes to learn. It should be attractive and encourage the user to actually use the application.

Why should I even bother with a software title when the publisher doesn't give a rat's ass about my time?

Yes. The newest release runs on my machine now. I own MS Office 2007 and have only found one or two things that OO does different that annoy me, but this is probably mostly nearly two decades of using MSO first. I remember feeling the same way when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to MS Word. I ran WP in a dos window for years even after I had Win95.

You've only found 2? I've found many.

True. However, there are relatively few BB users compared to others.

I beg to differ! I can't even turn a corner and not see a Bold or a Curve! While BB users are obviously in a minority, I'd think a customer base of oh...even a hundred million is a significant subset of people to attract!

I'm told by friends that there is decent IPhone/Ipod support. There's also some rumor that RIM is looking at Linux platforms for support since a good chunk of the BB population are Linux proponents (Geeks/nerds/etc.)

Rumor you say? "Good chunk"? I wouldn't mind seeing stats on this...most of the BB users I know use Windows alone. Only one has knowledge of Linux and supports it...but personally...he uses Vista.

PS I'm not a BB user...I much prefer my laptop and a sexy slim gimmicky phone.

 

[phlogistician]

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

No accounting for taste is there

Tastes like biscuits, ...

vs

 

[river-wind]

I've never seen a Mac server host a business application in my entire IT career. From what I recall, Mac 'servers' merely did file and print sharing. Also, like I said, does anyone run an international network comprising of Macs, with a hierarchical and geographic security model? Do Macs have this as an innate property, to manage such? They can attach to 3rd party LDAP directories, or connect to MS Active Directory, but is there any more? None that I have seen, Macs are workgroup machines at best, something Microsoft Windows outgrew a long, long time ago.

I have, numerous doc management case management and other server-side processing business apps, yes, yes (though the GUI is lacking in this area) Yes, yes. No.

Are you aware of OS X's BSD Unix back-end?

edit: Also, while I do not think Apple's monitors are worth it for me, I'd buy them if I was doing pro graphic design again. Apple uses a different LCD panel technology which results in much better color reproduction: the S_IPS panel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IPS#IPS

That, plus an integrated iSight, speakers, and magsafe power connector for charging an apple-brand laptop makes is convenient. Again, for my uses, Dell's slightly lower quality FPW series is a better deal. But there is a difference in the features between the two lines.

 

[river-wind]

Incorrect.

Configure a Mac on Apple's site. Now configure a Dell Studio Hybrid.

Mac - 2.0 Core 2, 2GB DDR2 667MHz, 160GB SATA 5400rpm, SuperDrive, 20" Cinema, wireless keyboard and mouse, no extended services, MacOS
Grand Total: USD 1652.
Total without the overpriced monitor: USD 1053.

Which model did you spec out? The Core 2 models currently available are the laptops and the iMac - both which already have a monitor. Why are youa dding a second screen in your calculations?

All Mac Pro desktops are XEON systems.

 

[John99]

As an example, Mac's and Dell's are pretty much priced similarly.

 

[river-wind]

It's a limit to how many machines you can share music with/sync your ipod with. After a DRM laden iTunes downloaded .aac file has been on five different hosts, iTunes won't let you take it any further. So you start with one Mac, and years later, after you copy your music to successive new machines, that copy limit expires, and you have lost your music.

When you move to a different machine, you deactivate that machine as one of your 5. I've moved my iTunes music across about 12 machines now.

I guess the only option is to strip out the DRM from the music you bought.

Not the only option, but it's a good one. I don't like DRM, particularly DRM that phones home - as happened with MS's own music store, when the authentication servers are shut down, the music will stop playing.

I have ripped the DRM off all my iTunes tracks.

My GF has an Ipod, but we still buy CDs and rip them ourselves, as .mp3's. This is so I can listen to them on my PDA too, and we have a physical backup should a hard drive fail. Even though Itunes probably keeps a record of what you have bought, they don't allow you to download again if your HD fails, they want the money all over again.

These are both good points, though more and more CD's have built-in copy protection which can cause some major problems (as with the Sony rootkit from last year). DRM, the DCMA and the inertia of the recording industry are an OS-agnostic problem that needs to be solved.

And you're right Apple does not allow re-downloads if your hardware dies. This is another reason why I don't use iTunes much for music. At the moment the Zune music store is a much better deal. Too bad the zune itself is quite the pain in the ass to use. Hopefully the iTunes rules will improve, as will the zune. Competition is good!

 

[SkinWalker]

I admit, that was one busy and complicated looking screenshot of Damn Small Linux. I wouldn't want to use it. Ubuntu on the other hand is great.

I used to only play around with Linux back in the 90's and again around 2000 mostly out of curiosity. I loaded it on various machines that I had and was completely dissatisfied. I've been a Microsoft user for decades. Literally. I'm not a Bill-Basher, I actually like Bill Gates and respect what he's done. I like Windows.

I just like Ubuntu more. I can't explain it. I loaded a live CD -again, out of curiosity- and since early 2008, my computer has only loaded Windows XP a handful of times. I have very little reason to use it. Linux is faster, more reliable, and overall just feels good. I never thought I would have fell head over heals for Ubuntu Linux. Here's a screenshot of my Hardy Heron desktop:

The icons along the top are my most used items. Evolution to check my various email accounts; Open Office where I do all my writing; Opera so I can test my blog's look/feel in a second browser, VLC where I watch all my movies, iRiverter which converts video files to a format my N800 and iRiver can better handle, and Rhythmbox which I use to download my podcasts and play music. The two icons that look like CDs (blue and orange) are scripts I wrote to start GMediaServer for my N800 so it can stream audio files from the Ubuntu machine. Next is a dialog box for a dictionary I installed.

The icons to the right of that comprise the system tray: Amorak, Update, Conduit, Google Desktop, Desktop Search (I'm currently trying to figure out which is better & will eventually eliminate the other); Screenlets; and the Network icon.

If the desktop gets cluttered, its a simply matter to switch to a clean desktop via the little boxes in the lower right corner next to the trashcan.

 

[CheskiChips]

If wine ever becomes perfected I would use Ubuntu for more than a server.

The software doesn't exist in Ubuntu for the guy who interacts with a lot of clients on his computer...you want to look like you're ahead of the curve not behind it. Much of the formating of files and total lack of support for things like access or a decent power point is a kicker for the business man. My kicker was the no-touch screen compatibility. And yes...I hate my computer being held hostage.

For the avid iNet 2.0 (or 3.0 it seems really) user, internet access could not be more compatible with any other system. Yes, I miss my ssh mail. But for the man not in computer engineering...ascii art ain't gonna cut it.

You're not going to see my ass trying to remember the command to delete a line while trying to write my business analysis in Vi. And my embedded graph isn't going to have +-(1)X derivatives aitken to the back/forward slash symbol.
Those last two are really just jokes.

 

[phlogistician]

Ah, the death knell for the 'Macs are more secure' fallacy;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7760344.stm

 

[Enterprise-D]

Which model did you spec out? The Core 2 models currently available are the laptops and the iMac - both which already have a monitor. Why are youa dding a second screen in your calculations?

All Mac Pro desktops are XEON systems.

Mac Mini. Mac Mini and Dell Hybrid are equivalent systems.

Mac Minis do not default with a monitor, and there are no cheaper options than the 20" Cinema.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I admit, that was one busy and complicated looking screenshot of Damn Small Linux. I wouldn't want to use it. Ubuntu on the other hand is great.

Yep it is. I included it to indicate that a blanket outcry of support and mass exodus towards Linux can be somewhat premature.

I used to only play around with Linux back in the 90's and again around 2000 mostly out of curiosity. I loaded it on various machines that I had and was completely dissatisfied. I've been a Microsoft user for decades. Literally. I'm not a Bill-Basher, I actually like Bill Gates and respect what he's done. I like Windows.

I just like Ubuntu more. I can't explain it.

And you don't have to. You've found Ubuntu useful for your purposes through an objective evaluation, not a bandwagon effect or "Bill-bashing". That's called freedom of choice.

I loaded a live CD -again, out of curiosity- and since early 2008, my computer has only loaded Windows XP a handful of times. I have very little reason to use it. Linux is faster, more reliable, and overall just feels good. I never thought I would have fell head over heals for Ubuntu Linux.

The icons along the top are my most used items. Evolution to check my various email accounts; Open Office where I do all my writing; Opera so I can test my blog's look/feel in a second browser, VLC where I watch all my movies, ...

All very well and good; we all know that Windows versions or equivalents of all the software you listed exist...and I know you're technically minded such that you can support Ubuntu yourself. My problem was the unfounded Windows/PC bashing and the pretense that everything outside of Microsoft was Utopia.

 

[river-wind]

Mac Mini. Mac Mini and Dell Hybrid are equivalent systems.

Mac Minis do not default with a monitor, and there are no cheaper options than the 20" Cinema.

ah, yes. the top-end mac mini is a bad deal. You're paying for small, not power. The Dell Studio is a better deal than the mini. edit: the Dell Studio is 8.5x3", while the mac mini is 6.5x2".

 

[Enterprise-D]

ah, yes. the top-end mac mini is a bad deal. You're paying for small, not power. The Dell Studio is a better deal than the mini.

No...you're paying for the screen lol

 

[river-wind]

I'm not considering the monitor - the apple cinima display uses a better LCD panel, but it's not so much better that it's worth the extra money (to me). You know you could buy a Dell FWP to hook up to the mac mini, right?

But since the LCD's are different hardware, it's not a fair comparison - so looking just at the machines themselves, the mini is smaller, and it costs more.

 

[lixluke]

Also, Dell et al have incorporated Ubuntu (mainly) into their offerings. Thus users do have an OS choice on their home devices.

This is utterly absurd. Users do not have OS choice. It's not like going to the store to buy jeans, and have a plethora of quality goods to choose from. You either choose Windows or you die. What are you trying to prove about Dell and their 1 computer with Ubuntu? That customers have a great many OSs to choose from when purchasing a PC? Sorry to break the delusion, but cutsomers have 1 chocie, and that is Windows.

No other company has or can create an OS with their own multitude of apps to compete, and give us better choices. If there was 100 stable OS for the non-savvy end-user to choose from, there would be more and better competition on innovation. But what do all these brand name computers have on them? Windows. If all these brand name computer companies had a wide range of OS/Apps that are on par with Windows to choose from, end-users would see a much better quality in their computing experisnce.

Well, there'd suddenly exist about a billion computers with no support. Expenses galore to shift all corporate machines to an alternative.

Good. Who cares? Irrelevant. If for some reason, Microsoft were to go out of business, nobody really cares. It is a company. Companies come and go. That is how capitalism works. You start a comapny. You succeed. So what? You fail. So what? Irrelevant.

Not to mention the loss of one of the world's biggest revenue generators. Not a good thing in the middle of an economic crisis.

Do you not get the concept of free market? Businesses succeed on competition. If they cannot compete, they die. All else is irrelevant. Good bye to any company that cannot cut it.

How so? Again, there are thousands of titles for Windows.

Title's for what? Thank you for proving my point: The fact is MS has caused far far far far less innovation because of source code patents. It is one thing to patent a software product, but patenting source code gives control over anybody's use of it. People cannot develop software without running into source code that has already been patented by other companys mainly MS, and also Apple and others.

Further...why would it be better to have 10 different PC OS offerings, rather than 2?

Other than the ethical standpoint of developers being free to release their own software without paying off monopolists. Thereby providing customers with more and better software to choose from? No reason.

 

[lixluke]

You're pretty much forced to choose between three evils, aren't you? . . . Macintosh OS is more stable and secure.

What are you talking about? Mac is not more stable than Windows. Windows is the most stable OS out there.

 

[Enterprise-D]

This is utterly absurd. Users do not have OS choice. It's not like going to the store to buy jeans, and have a plethora of quality goods to choose from. You either choose Windows or you die. What are you trying to prove about Dell and their 1 computer with Ubuntu? That customers have a great many OSs to choose from when purchasing a PC? Sorry to break the delusion, but cutsomers have 1 chocie, and that is Windows.

Merely because one choice is more famous and indeed better supported than the others does not mean that other choices do not exist. Choosing a PC OS is not the same thing as buying a pair of jeans.

No other company has or can create an OS with their own multitude of apps to compete, and give us better choices. If there was 100 stable OS for the non-savvy end-user to choose from, there would be more and better competition on innovation. But what do all these brand name computers have on them? Windows. If all these brand name computer companies had a wide range of OS/Apps that are on par with Windows to choose from, end-users would see a much better quality in their computing experisnce.

Where did you get such a conclusion? You yourself have said other options are no choice compared to Windows. Even out of the 300 various distributions of the Linux OS.

Further, why does more = better? There are many situations that counter this value.

Moreover...100 stable OSs would mean probably 20 more versions of various software titles (because no one is going to write apps 100 times, every time), and cause users to bounce back and forth between OSs. And 100 stable OSs would require every manufacturer to pay for and provide 100 different drivers for each PC/laptop component PER driver version, causing the price of the hardware itself to skyrocket (since the COST of developing these drivers would be passed onto the customer).

100 stable OSs does not mean 100 inexpensive OSs...

Good. Who cares? Irrelevant. If for some reason, Microsoft were to go out of business, nobody really cares. It is a company. Companies come and go. That is how capitalism works. You start a comapny. You succeed. So what? You fail. So what? Irrelevant.

I just pointed out that a sudden disappearance of Microsoft (as you wished) would have high collateral damage to the rest of the world.

Do you not get the concept of free market? Businesses succeed on competition. If they cannot compete, they die. All else is irrelevant. Good bye to any company that cannot cut it.

The US government seems not to agree. Did you know Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year for 2008 is "bailout"?

Title's for what? Thank you for proving my point: The fact is MS has caused far far far far less innovation because of source code patents. It is one thing to patent a software product, but patenting source code gives control over anybody's use of it. People cannot develop software without running into source code that has already been patented by other companys mainly MS, and also Apple and others.

Please...don't let me start listing titles, the sheer length would be asinine. Just Google search for various software, you'll get em.

Other than the ethical standpoint of developers being free to release their own software without paying off monopolists. Thereby providing customers with more and better software to choose from? No reason.

This is a fallacy. You have no way of knowing that there is a causal relationship between the two. I suggest another way of looking at it is giving source code access to any idiot would result in disjoint support for dozens of irrelevant OSs, possible viral mischief (since Windows would still own majority market share) and much much less quality control.

Just take a look at knockoff jeans.

 

[lixluke]

What are you talking about? There is no choice. What do you not get about Windows has a monopoly on source code. Other companies cannot make an OS to compete with Windows. There is no choice in OS.

More OS to choose from means more freedom of choice. Less money for monopolists.

Go ahead and google software titles, and you will notice what company most software is made for, and proving my point: The fact is MS has caused far far far far less innovation because of source code patents. It is one thing to patent a software product, but patenting source code gives control over anybody's use of it. People cannot develop software without running into source code that has already been patented by other companys mainly MS, and also Apple and others.

I suggest another way of looking at it is giving source code access to any idiot would result in disjoint support for dozens of irrelevant OSs, possible viral mischief (since Windows would still own majority market share) and much much less quality control.

Windows would necessarily own majority marketshare is fallacy.
Disjoint support is irrelevant even if it wasn't nonsense.


You are basically saying that consumers have one OS to choose from, and it is better that way than having many OS to choose from. If consumers had many OS to choose from, there would be virus, disjoint support, and blah blah blah, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is more freedom for developers to develop which means more and better OSs and more and better software. And more choices for consumer on what they want to use that is more stable and far superior to Windows and titles out today.

 

[Enterprise-D]

What are you talking about? There is no choice. What do you not get about Windows has a monopoly on source code. Other companies cannot make an OS to compete with Windows. There is no choice in OS.

There have been 300 flavours of Linux, most of which still exist. You'd think SOMEONE might get it right for the desktop by now...

However, as noted, some people still make the choice to use Linux. Some still make the choice to use Mac. A relative few even abandon the desk altogether and go Symbian or BlackberryOS. Indeed we have not even touched on server options, a space where frankly I give Linux/Unix a LOT of credibility.

There are choices, despite the fact that Microsoft may own majority market share.

More OS to choose from means more freedom of choice. Less money for monopolists.

Go ahead and google software titles, and you will notice what company most software is made for, and proving my point: The fact is MS has caused far far far far less innovation because of source code patents. It is one thing to patent a software product, but patenting source code gives control over anybody's use of it. People cannot develop software without running into source code that has already been patented by other companys mainly MS, and also Apple and others.

Far less compared to what? Your claim has no basis, if this is your argument. This rebuttal is based on a supposition, a "what if MS did not own majority OS market share". What if they didn't? Would that mean better software? How so?

You have accepted the fact that Windows is majority leader. Therefore there is no need to develop a plethora of equivalent titles for anything else...merely only as necessary.

Windows would necessarily own majority marketshare is fallacy.

I should have clarified. If Microsoft opened their source code now they'd still have majority market share.

Disjoint support is irrelevant even if it wasn't nonsense.

HA! Get support for (desktop) Linux...whose source code is open. I'll keep on saying it til they improve: Linux.support.is.a.miscommunicative.pinball-machine of a mess. If nothing else the open source model has proven that much to me.

You are basically saying that consumers have one OS to choose from, and it is better that way than having many OS to choose from. If consumers had many OS to choose from, there would be virus, disjoint support, and blah blah blah, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

Of course it isn't irrelevant. You are a bandwagon jumper.

It is a fact that open source support is extremely scattered. There is no way it can be anything but if everyone continues to customize and change even down to the basic commands. Three hundred flavours, three hundred support contacts and three hundred different measures of quality.

Further, opening MS code NOW will likely encourage smart-alecky ne'er-do-wells to attempt the destruction of Windows (as they do now)...mind you, I AM indeed assuming a lot here, except that I'm basing this assumption on the fanboy effect of Linux and the live demonstration I witness weekly.

The only thing that is relevant is more freedom for developers to develop which means more and better OSs and more and better software. And more choices for consumer on what they want to use that is more stable and far superior to Windows and titles out today.

This is not the only thing that is relevant. Indeed, what drives any business is consumer demand, and consumers demand ease of use and ease of support key elements in any product (among other things). Operating Systems are not immune to this rule...and having three hundred of them will not make any of these requirements go away.

 

[lixluke]

There have been 300 flavours of Linux, most of which still exist. You'd think SOMEONE might get it right for the desktop by now.

No. WTF! do you not get about the fact that they cannot do crap because software monopolists, namely MS, has monopoly on source code?

MS goes out of business or not is irrelevant if developers have freedom to develop. More and better software cannot be developed because of MS monopoly.

There are choices, despite the fact that Microsoft may own majority market share.

Strawman. Choice between crap that is crap and a software monopoly is not the same thing is real choice. MS has monopoly. Therefore, choices are severely impaired. There are no OSs that come closer to anything but a distand range to Windows with exception of Mac. It is a monopoly. That is how monopolies work. You do not have competition. You monopolize everything so that the only choice is yours.


You are proposing that it is better for end-users that MS have a monopoly. You are then asserting that end-users have lots of choices on OS. This is not only a contradiction, but absolutely false.




1. If MS did not have monopoly, then developers will have more freedom to develop OS and apps. MS monopoly severely impairs developers from developing and releasing OS and apps.

2. Many OS distros are irrelevant to end-user choice. There cannot be any other significant choice of OS for end-users because of MS monopoly. Customers do not have choice in any significant form. They either choose Windows or they die. Claiming that customers have choice because of so many Linux distros is a joke and severe dillusion. It is not realistic in the slightest. The reality is that Windows is the only choice that can be considered worthwhile for PCs.

3. The reason there are not more OSs and apps out there to choose from is because of MS monopoly.

4. Any real world effects as a result of end-user freedom to choose OS are nothing but positive. Any negative effects are actually positive. There is nothing negative that can come out of freedom of development and freedom of choice. However, MS monopoly is nothing other than a burden on innovation and end-user freedom.