Why Macs Suck BALLS

Status
Not open for further replies.
MAC even runs Windows OS faster than PC's.
Click to expand...

What? What Mac? What PC? What Windows OS? This claim makes no sense because there is nothing super special about the hardware that Apple uses. I'm not aware of any reason why I couldn't order parts from Newegg tonight to assemble a PC that would run XP at least as fast (probably faster) than any Apple.

The advantage that Apple has is their OS, combined with the tight control over hardware that allows them to avoid driver and software issues that inevitably crop up with Microsoft operating systems, and the thousands of manufacturers who make hardware and software to work with them.
 
They were talking abour Vista.
Regardless of what OS, it still stands that MAC ran it faster.

Mac: In both the laptop and desktop showdowns, Apple’s computers were the winners. Oddly, the big difference didn’t come in our user ratings, where we expected the famously friendly Mac interface to shine. Our respondents liked the look and feel of both operating systems but had a slight preference toward OS X. In our speed trials, however, Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.
Click to expand...

Excellent Popular Mechanics Article
 
The reason the PCs were slower was because both of the Macs tested had faster CPUs (and possibly faster hard drives). Faster hardware=faster computer.
 
EntropyAlwaysWins said:
Unless the hardware is identical, it's not a fair test.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as identical between PC and MAC and this was the most fair, accurate and unbiased test ever performed between the two.
MAC is a clear winner, regardless of how much people (including me) don't want to believe it.
 
Sooner or later, someone is going to figure out that there is a market for streamlined software and operating systems - small, fast, tight, crash-resistant bundles of code that lack most features (like forty fonts), don't pick up viruses easily, don't decorate the screen with chartjunk, and are transparent in operation.

For example, an operating system that stores all parts of any given program in one or two places that are easy to find, and erases them all whenever that program is discarded by the user.

With the smaller demands, smaller and cooler (and therefore faster) chips, or larger but emptier and more easily cooled chips. With the easier cooling, no noisy fans.

That guy will make a fortune. A very loyal and larger than presently suspected market awaits.
 
iceaura said:
With the easier cooling, no noisy fans.
Click to expand...

Not likely. The current slate of chips actually produce more heat than before, despite the fact that the applications place a smaller demand on them by comparison to the applications in the late 90's. They are simply designed to run hotter. Fact is: software has only increased at half the pace as the hardware.

This is why, in the 90's the half-life of a computer was two years at best. Nowadays, however, I can build a computer for my dad, sister and uncle (which I did more than four years ago) and have them remain totally relevant to this day. The hardware just has outstripped the software's demands.

In the future, most chips won't be cooled by fans, but the fluid that cools the chips will need to be radiated by a fan, which will still make annoying noises. Like the VW Beetle, air-cooling severly limits the capability and will give way very soon to liquid cooling (probably by an anti-freeze like fluid).

Besides: just get one of the slightly more expensive ones that are designed for quiet running. They're pretty silent.

~String
 
string said:
Not likely. The current slate of chips actually produce more heat than before, despite the fact that the applications place a smaller demand on them by comparison to the applications in the late 90's. They are simply designed to run hotter.
Click to expand...
So change that. That's a design flaw.

A third of all computer users have little or no need for the kind of performance a hot chip provides, especially if the code is tightened up.

There is one box - the Apple Cube - that was designed that way. It was more computer than I will ever need, and required no fan - great for working with music on, etc. It is also the only computer I know of that appreciated in price after it was discontinued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube
 
Steve100 said:
Of course.
Click to expand...

lol I had submitted it to the image-blog site that I had got the other pics from before I had even asked you!:)

its right here:

www.myconfinedspace.com

superstring01 said:
Not likely. The current slate of chips actually produce more heat than before, despite the fact that the applications place a smaller demand on them by comparison to the applications in the late 90's. They are simply designed to run hotter. Fact is: software has only increased at half the pace as the hardware.

This is why, in the 90's the half-life of a computer was two years at best. Nowadays, however, I can build a computer for my dad, sister and uncle (which I did more than four years ago) and have them remain totally relevant to this day. The hardware just has outstripped the software's demands.

In the future, most chips won't be cooled by fans, but the fluid that cools the chips will need to be radiated by a fan, which will still make annoying noises. Like the VW Beetle, air-cooling severly limits the capability and will give way very soon to liquid cooling (probably by an anti-freeze like fluid).

Besides: just get one of the slightly more expensive ones that are designed for quiet running. They're pretty silent.

~String
Click to expand...

I like my computer to make a little noise (or just make the desk vibrate a little). that way I know its working

iceaura said:
A third of all computer users have little or no need for the kind of performance a hot chip provides, especially if the code is tightened up.
Click to expand...

1/3 is a minority, which means the majority of the market does need that.
 
one_raven said:
There is no such thing as identical between PC and MAC and this was the most fair, accurate and unbiased test ever performed between the two.
MAC is a clear winner, regardless of how much people (including me) don't want to believe it.
Click to expand...

All of the machines in that test had Intel Core Two Duo CPUs. It makes no difference that one was in a Mac, and one in a PC. What does matter is the speed rating in GHz, the CPU's memory cache, etc. To update my earlier post, I could easily go to Newegg, order parts that exceed the specifications of the macs tested (now that I know them) and have a machine that will run Vista faster than any of those included in the test. For far less money.

What I cannot do is build a machine, and then buy the Mac OS and install it. That is why you pay the big bucks for Apple machines, because that is the only way to get the operating system.
 
Both the hard drive and the CD drive in my ten-year-old Mac crashed and while I'm replacing them I'm stuck using my Windows box for both business and personal use. Windows XP drives me crazy and everyone I know warns me not to even think about Vista.

I spend at least thirty minutes every day being a damn software mechanic. Don't you just love that polite little message: "We're so terribly, terribly, terribly sorry, but Outlook has encountered a teensy-weensy problem so it's going to have to SHUT DOWN AND LOSE YOUR WORK. But if you like we'll automatically send an e-mail to Microsoft so they can analyze the problem."

Microsoft must have an entire file cabinet with my name on it and I'm sure they just sit around and laugh at it because after all I'm only a stupid customer and I have no rights. One of their stupid programs crashes, on the average, ONCE EVERY FUCKING DAY. Outlook, Internet Explorer, Word or Excel. That's all I use, AND THE DAMN SHIT DOESN'T WORK! A spreadsheet, a word processor, a browser and e-mail, and those overpaid incompetent bastards in Redmond can't make them work reliably??? Oh but it gets worse. Sometimes Windows itself hangs and I have to re-boot the damn computer, which takes five minutes and sometimes longer. I like to check my e-mail, make my daily contributions to the charity websites, and read a few comics that my local newspaper doesn't carry, over breakfast. On these Windows-failure days, I CAN'T DO THAT. I'm lucky if I can get into Weather.com to find out if I need to wear rain boots.

A Macintosh is an appliance. You turn it on, you push a few buttons, and out pops perfectly toasted data. It doesn't do anything fancy, but the damn thing does what it's supposed to do and does it right every time, and rather quickly. The only thing that ever crashes on my Mac is the goddamned Microsoft-for-Mac software I had to buy to share files with my office. It boots in about two minutes and I can click on four program icons and it will open all of them in about one minute. (Try that on a Windows box and you'll hear grinding noises and smoke will come out the vents.)

A PC is... well it's either a toy or a hobby or a science fair project or a delicate laboratory instrument, but there's no way you can call it an appliance. You never have to think about your appliances, they're idiot-proof, they put up with a lot of abuse, and they need to be fiddled with once or twice a year. A PC collapses if I type too fast or if I lose my place while I'm waiting for it to respond and do something illogical. And I have to be my own software mechanic because the damn thing is always losing my files or crashing in the middle of an update so I don't know where I am. The menu structure is bewildering and totally illogical.

PC's and Microsoftware are pure shit. They are designed by computer geeks who assume that everybody is like them: We love troubleshooting, we love complicated menus, we want a whole lot of features that have very little practical use and are difficult to learn but they look glamorous, and basically we want to devote a whole lot of our precious time to fiddling with our computers.

And you know something? I WAS A COMPUTER GEEK FOR MANY YEARS! I wrote an operating system. I debugged programs for computer programmers. I taught assembler language. I wrote a simulator for testing online programs in batch mode. But I'm TIRED of that crap! All I want now is a computer that does what it's supposed to so I never have to think about it.

When I was a kid I liked to overhaul carburetors. Now I just want my car to get me from Point A to Point B because I have more important things to do than monkey around with my damn carburetor.

Well guess what. I also have more important things to do than monkey around with my damn computer. So I will ALWAYS be a Macintosh man.

Fuck PCs, fuck Windows, and FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK BILL GATES. The man is a mediocre engineer and a totally incompetent project manager. I wouldn't hire him to sweep the floor in my computing center. He can't even spell "QA." The only thing he's good at is being a salesman, and unfortunately I live in a country where that's all you need to be successful.

To hell with PCs. And the .00005 percent of the human race that has the time, aptitude, temperament, training and patience to get any meaningful work out of them should go off to their own planet. The other six and a half billion of us are better suited for Macs.
 
Fraggle, there is something seriously wrong with your computer for you to have that many problems. MS software has it's shortcomings, no doubt, but I use XP machines at work and at home all day, and none of the ones I deal with have anything like the problems you are describing.
 
It does not take any special training or aptitude to use windows. Vista is not anywhere near as unstable or broken as many people seem to think. It works absolutely fine and the only time I have ever seem it crash was when iTunes (like the broken kludge it is) decides to crash my laptop. Vista is *much* better than XP or mac.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top