Why Macs Suck BALLS

[Rick]

i bought macbook (13 inch) on Friday. It came pre-loaded with all java things ( JDK, Maven, Eclipse, JBOSS) that i need as a java developer; I was able to install all the software that i had in vista, all things smooth as hell. No problems and not to mention unix security; structure and ease of mac os x interface and iTunes!

I am in awe and in love with mac os x.

Rick

 

[distantcube]

I hate MS because of their fascist monopoly on source code. Patent your app, OK, but to patent source code is business profiteeting that causes far less innovation in software markets.

Regardles, I use XP because it is the standared. Even all the instructions for major applications are for Windows with Mac instructions on the side.

I'm afraid to isntall Linux on my PC. Ubuntu completelly crashed on me to the point there was no way to boot it up. No safe mode or anything. I could never figure out how to check device manager to make sure my hardware drivers worked. Furthermore, the filesystem made no sense.

As for hardware, I much prefer to get good parts on line to custom build a PC instead of purchasing from Dell. I wouldn't go near apple products for the simple reason that they are even way more over priced than Dell. Even if I wanted to use Apple OS, I would still use custom hardware, and never Apple. That is if OSX does work on non-apple hardware.

You're pretty much forced to choose between three evils, aren't you?

Let's face it, Windows is awfully unstable, bloated and insecure. Running recent games is a pain, where you find yourself wondering "OMG do I have the correct hardware/drivers?" and "Why the hell won't it run!?", punctuated by spontaneous crashes and reboots. And let's not forget that many games are just ports from consoles these days (Halo, Assassin's Creed)
On the other hand, most games you want to play are out out Windows. There are some old classics on MAC with inferior ports to Windows (Lemmings, Aperion, Ultima). But if you want to play Crysis, you're going to be using Windows.

Macintosh OS is more stable and secure. You don't find yourself hitting reboot every day. Start times are quicker. Less time is spent removing viruses and malware.
On the other hand, Macintosh makes you a slave. Everything you buy essentially becomes pre-packaged from Macintosh. Hell, they even strongly encourage you to buy a Macintosh keyboard and mouse. For exhorbitant cost, of course. The customer service also sucks. And then, as mentioned above, few decent games are on the MAC.

I've never used Linux, although one day I intend to give it a whirl. But from what I understand, it is even more secure and stable than the MacOS, but it has very few games.

Perhaps the answer here is to buy a gaming console (X-Box?) and use a shitty computer with Linux/Mac OS to do your work and browse on.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You're pretty much forced to choose between three evils, aren't you?

Let's face it, Windows is awfully unstable, bloated and insecure. Running recent games is a pain, where you find yourself wondering "OMG do I have the correct hardware/drivers?" and "Why the hell won't it run!?", punctuated by spontaneous crashes and reboots. And let's not forget that many games are just ports from consoles these days (Halo, Assassin's Creed)

Are you using Windows 95 still cube dude? Windows XP has since integrated many popular drivers, such that I usually never have to download more than the video card driver for a custom build. And Vista has even more.

I also, like I said before, own a few Windows machines + administer hundreds. I have not seen a blue screen in ages.

USERS make Windows unstable, by installing all the crap-ware available.

Also, two of my machines are configured such that one is a media machine and one is a gaming rig (they can actually switch functions, or one can take on both roles). I have yet to encounter problems with games, inclusive of Halo.

On the other hand, most games you want to play are out out Windows. There are some old classics on MAC with inferior ports to Windows (Lemmings, Aperion, Ultima). But if you want to play Crysis, you're going to be using Windows.

Die hard. Who the hell cares about Lemmings anymore?

Macintosh OS is more stable and secure. You don't find yourself hitting reboot every day. Start times are quicker. Less time is spent removing viruses and malware.

Defacto advantages only (with the exception of start times). MacOS appears more stable because there's less software to f*** it up. Same reason with the reboot, I have not rebooted my office Windows PC (which also doubles as a Virtual server for testing applications) in weeks...and the last time was only because of the electrical company requiring that power be cut off to run a service test on the block.

I do grant that Macs I've come across occasionally appear to boot faster...however, it entirely depends on what I'm comparing it to. There are Windows machines (Vista included!!) that boot just as quickly.

On the other hand, Macintosh makes you a slave. Everything you buy essentially becomes pre-packaged from Macintosh. Hell, they even strongly encourage you to buy a Macintosh keyboard and mouse. For exhorbitant cost, of course. The customer service also sucks. And then, as mentioned above, few decent games are on the MAC.

Correct! The wireless Mac keyboard/mouse combo is unnecessarily expensive. How about those Cinema monitors? Yes they're artistically designed and all that...but really? $699 for a monitor?

Only had one experience with Mac support; satisfactory...however, I'm just evaluating the one time.

I've never used Linux, although one day I intend to give it a whirl. But from what I understand, it is even more secure and stable than the MacOS, but it has very few games.

You mean from the hype you've been listening to.

MacOS is also based on UNIX, therefore good distributions of Linux inherit the same defacto advantages...no one is interested in writing a virus for it cause it'll affect 1% of the productive world. And, there's very little software for it...even if users could figure out how to find and install the titles.

Perhaps the answer here is to buy a gaming console (X-Box?) and use a shitty computer with Linux/Mac OS to do your work and browse on.

The answer is to buy the system that you require. If all you really need is a browsing/email machine, you can even get a smartphone for that! Why even consider games if your PC use is limited (or restricted by a budget)?

I'm not opposed to anyone USING Linux, or Macs...but to blame all the user errors on Windows...which in and of itself is a bandwagon effect...is ridiculous.

 

[phlogistician]

I hate MS because of their fascist monopoly on source code. .

Try writing a freeware app for an iPhone, and see how far you get. Want to actually _own_ the music you pay for at iTunes? Sorry, no, you lease it until you have paid Apple for another five computers, and then they expire your lease. That's a ticking time bomb.

Want to run OS-X, but don't want Apple hardware? Sorry, they force you to buy hardware exclusively from them. MS just sell you an OS, they don't demand money for the PC too.

 

[phlogistician]

Macintosh OS is more stable and secure.

Urban MYTH!

I look after a lot of servers for a living, and they do what they do for months on end, without needing regular reboots. 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.

Macs are not much more secure, it's just Apple are very secretive about what updates they release, and do not tell you what vulnerabilities the updates address, like MS do. The recent DNS exploit highlighted that Macs are not more secure than PC's, should someone with malicious intent target them, but it's just not worth the trouble, as they are such a small % of the market.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Want to actually _own_ the music you pay for at iTunes? Sorry, no, you lease it until you have paid Apple for another five computers, and then they expire your lease. That's a ticking time bomb.

WHOA!! I dinna know this one! It's a good thing I resisted the iPod craze!

 

[Rick]

phlog,

You are right ... I haven't seen Macs on professional front ever either. I code for living ... even before thats what i ever did; I got mac this time, because i wanted to
1.) try it out.
2.) Liked how they configured all the Java stuff in the OS itself (advantageous but disadvantageous in some sense).
3.) Been using iPod and iPhone for a long time now and was very happy with how intuitive and stable it is.

In any case, i am not a system administrator by trait, i have done some server upgrades for some clients on site ... never encountered a mac personally;

Rick

 

[phlogistician]

WHOA!! I dinna know this one! It's a good thing I resisted the iPod craze!

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.

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

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.

 

[phlogistician]

3.) Been using iPod and iPhone for a long time now and was very happy with how intuitive and stable it is.

Ah, I'm a fan of Windows. iTunes just seems complicated and badly designed to me. I far prefer the way I sync my PDA with Windows Media Player, to the way my gf has to synch her Ipod.

On Iphones, well I have a HTC Smartphone, with GPS, and my gf has a Nokia N95 with GPS. We use our phones to take pictures, and video a fair bit (latter not an option with the iPhone) when we are out surfing, snowboarding etc, it means we only need to take one device. I reckon the iPhone will become a decent device in time, but it certainly wasn't the revolution it was hyped to be, the LG Viewty, Sony Xperia X1, Nokia N96, all rather good, mature devices in their own right, and Iphone killers, IMHO.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Ah, I'm a fan of Windows. iTunes just seems complicated and badly designed to me. I far prefer the way I sync my PDA with Windows Media Player, to the way my gf has to synch her Ipod.

On Iphones, well I have a HTC Smartphone, with GPS, and my gf has a Nokia N95 with GPS. We use our phones to take pictures, and video a fair bit (latter not an option with the iPhone) when we are out surfing, snowboarding etc, it means we only need to take one device. I reckon the iPhone will become a decent device in time, but it certainly wasn't the revolution it was hyped to be, the LG Viewty, Sony Xperia X1, Nokia N96, all rather good, mature devices in their own right, and Iphone killers, IMHO.

I have to somewhat disagree though. The iPhone has an aesthetic appeal that the other guys have yet to hit. I anticipate that Blackberry will be the real iPhone contender when the Storm is upgraded to include WiFi

 

[phlogistician]

There are ROMs for Windows PDAs that do all that flashy stuff if you want it, like Pointui.

And then you get a flashy interface, PLUS a decent phone. Screw Apple.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I mean the physical appeal...most other smartphones are thick and unwieldy. I took one look at a Blackberry Bold and could not stand the sheer heft of the device. I'd rather lift my laptop to my ears.

Of course..."thick" and "unwieldy" is relative.

 

[phlogistician]

I mean the physical appeal...most other smartphones are thick and unwieldy. I took one look at a Blackberry Bold and could not stand the sheer heft of the device. I'd rather lift my laptop to my ears.

Of course..."thick" and "unwieldy" is relative.

Oh, it's in a nice casing? Yeah, I have to admit it's pretty sleek, as are the MacBook Air laptops, but then they should be for the price!

My O2 XDA Orbit looks pretty slick IMO;

Esp as it has a nice matt black silicon sleeve around it, comme ça;

 

[Enterprise-D]

Still! You have to grant Apple just that...their iPhone looks really hot.

Even the Mac Mini had the physical appeal...til Dell whipped out the Studio Hybrids.

 

[phlogistician]

Ugh, Mac Mini, looks like a biscuit tin.

 

[SkinWalker]

MacOS is also based on UNIX, therefore good distributions of Linux inherit the same defacto advantages...no one is interested in writing a virus for it cause it'll affect 1% of the productive world.

I can't really speak to Mac OS since I'm only an occasional user (my uni has several). But, while it is true that virus/malware writers concentrate on Windows because of the population, its also true that Linux is more secure.

So, even if the playing fields are leveled, malicious software is more easily written for Windows than Linux (and probably Mac). This is demonstrated by the recent hacker challenge (last year) where the Windows machine was hacked first, the Mac second (through a Safari vulnerability), and the Ubuntu/Linux machine was unmolested.

The hackers got to keep the hardware they hacked, so the motivation was there. They just couldn't get through since Linux is more easily secured.

And, there's very little software for it...even if users could figure out how to find and install the titles.

Again, speaking only for Linux, I haven't found this to be the case. Very rarely have I come across a Windows program for sale at, say, $40 that I couldn't find an open source analog that was completely free and downloaded simply by mouse clicking my package manager. Indeed, I would say this method of installation is cleaner, greener, and easier than unwrapping plastic & cardboard and swapping discs in and out.

I've one single beef with the availability of software on Linux: my blackberry can't sync to Evolution -I have to boot into Windows to sync to Outlook.

I have a dual boot system and, with Open Office installed, I think I've only booted to Windows a three or four times in the last 6 months. All just to update or sync my blackberry.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I can't really speak to Mac OS since I'm only an occasional user (my uni has several). But, while it is true that virus/malware writers concentrate on Windows because of the population, its also true that Linux is more secure.

So, even if the playing fields are leveled, malicious software is more easily written for Windows than Linux (and probably Mac). This is demonstrated by the recent hacker challenge (last year) where the Windows machine was hacked first, the Mac second (through a Safari vulnerability), and the Ubuntu/Linux machine was unmolested.

The hackers got to keep the hardware they hacked, so the motivation was there. They just couldn't get through since Linux is more easily secured.

Fresh from download, various Linux distributions include levels of security. However:
- To grant yourself (the user) permissions, one has to go thru the high learning curve I mentioned in the other thread
- This hacker challenge is merely a selection of 3 machines, with (to me here) an unknown flavour of Linux. I know someone with the skills to blast Linux out the door. And if there's one hacker that can...it is reasonable to assume that there are more.

Again, speaking only for Linux, I haven't found this to be the case. Very rarely have I come across a Windows program for sale at, say, $40 that I couldn't find an open source analog that was completely free and downloaded simply by mouse clicking my package manager. Indeed, I would say this method of installation is cleaner, greener, and easier than unwrapping plastic & cardboard and swapping discs in and out.

When last did you install something for Windows? Everything major is available for download. Even Microsoft makes software available for download, albeit thru their MSDN services. Antivirus programs, media players, DVD burning tools, firewalls etc...download em while they're hot. Of course in Windows not everything's free...

...and the "open source analog" is just that: a hodgepodge of code by various software writers who may or may not be focused on the same strategy. I have not come across any desktop software on Linux that could come anywhere close to competing with desktop software for Windows.

What's the open source equivalent of Photoshop? GIMP? Pity you can't hear skepticism in type
Is Open Office a true competitor for MS Office 07? Outside of being free.

I've one single beef with the availability of software on Linux: my blackberry can't sync to Evolution -I have to boot into Windows to sync to Outlook.

I have a dual boot system and, with Open Office installed, I think I've only booted to Windows a three or four times in the last 6 months. All just to update or sync my blackberry.

Dude...that's more than a big reason that Linux isn't ready for general desktop usage: "can't sync with a Blackberry"? Corporations have basically bought into Blackberry lock, stock and barrel. Why even waste time to install an OS that won't give their employees any of the BB advantages?

Your situation probably means you don't use your Blackberry often enough

 

[Enterprise-D]

Ugh, Mac Mini, looks like a biscuit tin.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

No accounting for taste is there

 

[SkinWalker]

Fresh from download, various Linux distributions include levels of security. However:
- To grant yourself (the user) permissions, one has to go thru the high learning curve I mentioned in the other thread

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 hacker challenge is merely a selection of 3 machines, with (to me here) an unknown flavour of Linux. I know someone with the skills to blast Linux out the door. And if there's one hacker that can...it is reasonable to assume that there are more.

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.

When last did you install something for Windows? Everything major is available for download. Even Microsoft makes software available for download, albeit thru their MSDN services. Antivirus programs, media players, DVD burning tools, firewalls etc...download em while they're hot. Of course in Windows not everything's free...

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 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.

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 the "open source analog" is just that: a hodgepodge of code by various software writers who may or may not be focused on the same strategy. I have not come across any desktop software on Linux that could come anywhere close to competing with desktop software for Windows.

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.

What's the open source equivalent of Photoshop? GIMP? Pity you can't hear skepticism in type

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.

Is Open Office a true competitor for MS Office 07? Outside of being free.

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.

The newest release of OO is cool, slick, and very, very efficient. Give it a try -there are Windows versions.

Dude...that's more than a big reason that Linux isn't ready for general desktop usage: "can't sync with a Blackberry"? Corporations have basically bought into Blackberry lock, stock and barrel. Why even waste time to install an OS that won't give their employees any of the BB advantages?

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

Your situation probably means you don't use your Blackberry often enough [/QUOTE]

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

This is demonstrated by the recent hacker challenge (last year) where the Windows machine was hacked first, the Mac second (through a Safari vulnerability), and the Ubuntu/Linux machine was unmolested.

The hackers got to keep the hardware they hacked, so the motivation was there. They just couldn't get through since Linux is more easily secured.

I believe you are referring to the PWN 2 OWN contest, and actually in the most recent one the Mac got hacked first.

source