Apple as bad as Microsoft?

[the.dark.lord]

Think about it. Apple seems as bad as Microsoft. They got DRM. Hardware lockup. Et cetera infinitum . I would like to hear from you regarding Apple.

[raul_]

They don't have crappy software though :mrgreen:

I think this has been discussed already. Try not to turn this into a flame thread...we have enough of those already

[the.dark.lord]

They don't have crappy software though :mrgreen:

I think this has been discussed already. Try not to turn this into a flame thread...we have enough of those already

Have to agree with you on that. And I am not trying to flame anything, I just want to know what people think about Apple.

[raul_]

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=320499

[the.dark.lord]

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=320499

That's pretty long.

[kevinlyfellow]

Well, considering that they use open technology and don't promote the open concept, then yeah, I think Apple is just as bad. Not a whole lot of people who use macs know that Apple used an open kernel, window manager, windowing system, and web browsing engine to build their software (and probably more)... In fact, I've run across at least one apple fanboy who thought the concept of open content was bad. For all they take, and all the money they recieve, I would think that they should be a bigger player in the open source world.

Another issue is the way they handle iTunes with drm. They have succeeded in vendor lock-in. For those who think that unfairplay is to protect artists is out of his/her mind.

Finally, the commercials that portray the mac as having a built in webcam, and the pc not... hmmm, long before that commercial, I saw pc laptops with it built in... infact, I bought one from System76 before the ad ran. This is misleading the consumer, but I doubt that it fooled too many people. But their ego's are through the roof nonetheless.

So yes, apple is evil, but it has better software.

[manmower]

I could write a huge rant on this subject, but it is something I feel way too strongly about to express myself in an appropriate manner. So I'll just give you the jist of my position: Apple are a lot worse than Microsoft, in my opinion.

[3rdalbum]

I too think that Apple are as bad as, or possibly worse than Microsoft.

When the Mac OS becomes more popular, you can bet your bottom dollar that OS X will get the same "features" as Windows Vista as regards DRM and content encryption for HD video. Except, this will be worse, because most of the time you can't just replace the video card in a Mac with a card that supports encryption.

[the.dark.lord]

Thanks for the opinions. Manmover, I would like to hear why Apple is worse than MS.

[Adamant1988]

They don't have crappy software though :mrgreen:

I think this has been discussed already. Try not to turn this into a flame thread...we have enough of those already

Microsoft is a wonderful software company. It's their operating systems that are the problem.
Anywho, I think the whole question is irrelevant, as Apple is really just an extension of Microsoft (correct me if I'm wrong, but does Microsoft not own 40% of Apple's stock?). Apple still exists today in thanks to Microsoft who saved the from financial situations to keep a competitor around. So, it's my opinion that Apple is no better or worse, it's a Microsoft puppet.

[the.dark.lord]

Microsoft is a wonderful software company. It's their operating systems that are the problem.
Anywho, I think the whole question is irrelevant, as Apple is really just an extension of Microsoft (correct me if I'm wrong, but does Microsoft not own 40% of Apple's stock?). Apple still exists today in thanks to Microsoft who saved the from financial situations to keep a competitor around. So, it's my opinion that Apple is no better or worse, it's a Microsoft puppet.

Heck. That's news to me. Just look at the jabs that Apple takes at Microsoft. Got any proof that Microsoft owns any Apple stock?

[Adamant1988]

Heck. That's news to me. Just look at the jabs that Apple takes at Microsoft. Got any proof that Microsoft owns any Apple stock?

There's something to be said about biting the hand that feeds. Let me google for a bit and see what I find. Apparently Microsoft owned stock but sold it off in '97. I must have been reading an out dated source when I got that information.

[manmower]

Thanks for the opinions. Manmower, I would like to hear why Apple is worse than MS.

I'll try and touch on a few things without slipping into flaming rant mode:

Hardware support. They barely support any hardware by choice, then tout the stability of their OS. It is much easier to make an OS stable if you restrict it to specific hardware configurations. Easier to the point Apple would be making fools of themselves if their OS wasn't as least as stable as Windows. I applaud Microsoft and GNU/Linux developers for covering as much hardware as they do even if it is not always perfectly supported. Things we take for granted, e.g. swapping motherboards, processors or GPUs, are freedoms that wouldn't exist in the brave new Apple world.

GUI. Yes OS X is good looking. But that's about it. In this department, Windows still gives a lot more power to the user than Mac does. Linux of course has them both beaten when it comes to this. I'm not going to elaborate on this because such preferences are partly personal, however my feeling is Apple takes away control in a bad way.

Marketing and public image. Mac seems to be riding on the bad image MS has at the moment. MS are the boogeymen and Mac are the cool kids. The public has developed a (healthy) distrust for Microsoft, not so for Mac (yet). They should though. The reason why stuff like the iPod spreads like wildfire is pure marketing. People pay big bucks for design and image and what they get can be had better and for cheaper from other brands. And all the while the iPod is sinking its DRM claws into our society. "iPod" has almost become a synonym for portable music player. I've used portable music players since the time people looked at you like you were a freak for wearing headphones. But when the great "innovator" Apple comes out with one they are suddenly the bee's knees.

Entire books have been written on why everyone should have an iPod and how people opposed to them (like me) are simply envious retards. I can't read a CD review in my favorite magazines anymore without it containing some stupid list suggesting which are the essential tracks I should have on my iPod. As if there are no longer other ways of listening to music. On a side note, I prefer to listen to records in their entirety, but I guess the so-called "iPod generation" (which I supposedly am part of at 23 years old) don't have the time to do that anymore.

I call that a sad, sad evolution. Why people swallow this and don't see through it, I don't know. With the iPhone Apple are repeating their little stunt again. Take available technologies, throw 'em together, overprice it and there you go: everyone wants one.

I've already written more than I was planning to so I'll leave it at that. I'm sorry if this sounded disrespectful at all to anyone.

[Rodneyck]

Very well said manmower. Btw, I read somewhere that Jobs is going to be rolling out a completely new OS soon. Did anyone else hear this?

[beefcurry]

I could write a huge rant on this subject, but it is something I feel way too strongly about to express myself in an appropriate manner. So I'll just give you the jist of my position: Apple are a lot worse than Microsoft, in my opinion.

Second on that comment. Note this is not flamming, this is economical analysis :D

Apple uses what people call "smear tactics". Instead of honestly doing business by innovating and promoting good points they instead decide to promote themselves by commenting on other peoples bad points. That "Mac Cult" that they have created are very efficient at doing this. Recently the iPhone was reported owned by Cisco, which throws all of Apples Ideals of dominating the Cell Phone market out of the window. Then suddenly out of the blue people start flamming Cisco on their blogs for erm...using Linux inappropriately (check the news if you want to know more). You may not think of it as much, but added with Apples lame comedic adverts on discrediting the average windows PC It is enough to make smart people think twice. More recently on the launch of Windows Vista apple advised users to "not upgrade to vista yet" as there could be problems and potential bugs on the Apple Itunes product running on Vista. The fact that over 5 million programs downloaded Vista as a Beta and Release candidate to make SURE Vista was working corretly with their programs, and their programs working with vista. However Apple seems to NOT have see this incompatibility and bug issue therefore just HAPPENS to not download or try their iTunes on Vista and therefore validating a nice little excuse to stop people from upgrading to Vista.

Sounds unbelievable? think again. Apple is GOOD at using market forces, and I dont mean it in a good way.

Once a person told me "A **** can be a good ****, like Bill Gates, hes a real **** but hes giving all his money to charity therefore can be good for once. However someone like Steave Jobs who is a **** and does not give money to charity will be a **** forever".

If we look at business ethics, Apple looses BIG time, especially earning 50% profit from every iPod they sell. Microsoft is learning good businiess ethics, Apple could just be going worse.

[steven8]

http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/30833

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Computer

Is Apple as bad as Microsoft, or is Steven Jobs as bad as Bill Gates. Which is the true question here. Both were the driving factors behind the directions these companies took.

[Shay Stephens]

I could write a huge rant on this subject, but it is something I feel way too strongly about to express myself in an appropriate manner. So I'll just give you the jist of my position: Apple are a lot worse than Microsoft, in my opinion.
If Apple were to be in the position of power Microsoft is in now, Apple would be worse than Microsoft. They restrict freedoms at nearly every turn (iPhone, iPod, etc). Jobs says he doesn't want anyone to install third party software on his iPhone...excuse me, but it's not your phone bub, it's the users phone. That is one of the problems, these companies don't sell products anymore, they only license their usage, so they feel they can do whatever they want with it.

So ya, I totally agree with you, Apple would be worse because they restrict freedoms a lot more than Microsoft, but Microsoft is rapidly catching up with advent of Vista. In a few more years, you may not be able to see a difference between the two.

[Alfa989]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does Microsoft not own 40% of Apple's stock?

Nope, they sold em circa 1997...:)

[Alfa989]

Not a whole lot of people who use macs know that Apple used an open kernel, window manager, windowing system, and web browsing engine to build their software (and probably more)... In fact,

Apple (well... NeXT) used an open kernel and an open web browsing engine, but the windowing system and window manager were created by Apple...

"Apple's Mac OS X operating system uses a central window server (created entirely by Apple)" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_PostScript

P.S: If it weren't by Apple , the folks at the KDE project wouldn't
be able to pass ACID2...


Another issue is the way they handle iTunes with drm. They have succeeded in vendor lock-in. For those who think that unfairplay is to protect artists is out of his/her mind.


Well... DRM is the only way for Apple to sell songs. If they sold songs without DRM no record label would ever let their artists songs to be available on iTunes...:)

[riven0]

After frequenting many Apple boards and reading up on the company, I'll have to agree with the general opinion here: Apple is much worse than Microsoft. I'm just grateful they don't have the marketshare Microsoft does, or who knows where we'll be now.

It's one of the reasons why I'll never buy a Mac. I got an iPod as a gift, but it'll probably be the last Apple product I'll ever get. I find no reason to support a company who is a control freak.

[AlphaMack]

I'm actually looking to hop off of the Mac train. Been riding it since 1997 because the uni computer store made me fall for one (I didn't know squat at the time). Stuck with it because of "brand loyalty" and the ignorance to the alternatives.

If there is anything that is dangerous on the Apple platform more than DRM or lock-in? It's the fanboy cult. If you publish anything bad about Apple, they'll go out of their way to make life hell for you (e.g. Brian Krebs, MOAB, David Maynor, etc. etc.). They preach their mantra without having a clue as to how OS X really works or whether there really are security threats out there (they're still in denial about Oompa and MOAB and even the "Get a Mac" ads continue to feed off of that ignorance).

After the move to Intel, there is no longer an excuse for Apple to overcharge. Yet they still do. Heck, they'll charge you $150 for wanting black (e.g. MacBook)! And parts will cost you in the long run. Since fanboys like to make BMW analogies so much, here is mine. Like ordinary daily drivers, cheap PCs can be easily fixed at your local mechanic. If something breaks down? No problem; go to the corner shop and get your part. My girlfriend's 5-year-old Dell Inspiron 4100 needed a new battery and optical drive; no problem. The parts were shipped to us in a few days from an online shop. If something in the Mac breaks? You can't just go to a corner mechanic. Like BMW, only BMW/Apple can fix it (unless you find an expensive specialty shop) and the parts have to be specialized for BMWs/Apples. If you find a third party part? You are entirely on your own and better hope that an Apple software or firmware update doesn't kill that part (e.g. the third party RAM fiasco).

I have made the move to Ubuntu and if it weren't for the lack of codec support on PPC (namely Flash and Win32) I would have relegated OS X to backup status. Sure, there is MOL, but it doesn't run that great on my PowerBook even with 1.25 GB RAM.

My next box will be a cheap PC running Ubuntu and XP. With more Vista machines to come out, the existing XP-speced OEMs should be getting cheaper. Considering that I already run Thunderbird, Firefox, Adium/GAIM, VLC, XMMS (via X11), GIMP (via X11), and Democracy Player - along with an occasional SuperTux, Blob Wars, and Frozen Bubble - I won't be missing much from OS X. Except maybe iMovie.

[Mike Tomasello]

If there is anything that is dangerous on the Apple platform more than DRM or lock-in? It's the fanboy cult. If you publish anything bad about Apple, they'll go out of their way to make life hell for you (e.g. Brian Krebs, MOAB, David Maynor, etc. etc.). They preach their mantra without having a clue as to how OS X really works or whether there really are security threats out there (they're still in denial about Oompa and MOAB and even the "Get a Mac" ads continue to feed off of that ignorance).I agree. It's one thing I really can't stand about Apple and their typical consumers.

Another thing is the way that, in my opinion, they seem to lie a lot. Or at least, they don't tell the whole truth. They claim innovative features such as 'spaces' on Leopard (and I'm sure we all recognize them) and claim Microsoft Windows Vista is 'ripping off' things like Spotlight, though the instant search feature for XP was, as far as I'm aware, available as an optional extra before Spotlight actually existed. Apple seem to choose to ignore these things and encourage public misconceptions.

In fairness to 'Apple cultists', a lot of them are no worse than 'Linux zealots', both of whom will like to tell you how XP won't be secure without fourteen simultaneously running anti-virus, spyware detection and firewall programmes. Hah. FUD.

I myself have an iPod Nano. I got it about a year ago because I thought (and still think) it was a good player at the time. Small, fairly easy to use, not bad battery life, and good storage. Certainly an improvement on my Creative Nomad 256MB which was probably bigger. I still use the Nano.

It didn't, however, take me long to get sick of iTunes. It was roughly the time between me first using iTunes, and me first installing Ubuntu. You tend to get very angry when you realise that the songs you bought, you didn't actually buy after all. You bought a licence which says you can use them only under certain conditions, and until the real owner says you can't use them any longer. Needless to say, I don't use that anymore.

No worse than Microsoft perhaps, but certainly no better.

Mike

[Alfa989]

After the move to Intel, there is no longer an excuse for Apple to overcharge. Yet they still do. Heck, they'll charge you $150 for wanting black (e.g. MacBook)!

The charge you for a bigger Hd, that's it...



If something in the Mac breaks? You can't just go to a corner mechanic. Like BMW, only BMW/Apple can fix it (unless you find an expensive specialty shop) and the parts have to be specialized for BMWs/Apples. If you find a third party part? You are entirely on your own and better hope that an Apple software or firmware update doesn't kill that part (e.g. the third party RAM fiasco).

If you need to get a new part you can do it from any 3rd party, it foesn't have to be Apple's...

What "third party RAM fiasco" are you talking about??:confused:

[riven0]

What "third party RAM fiasco" are you talking about??:confused:

I think he was talking about this (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60839). Not sure if it's still a problem today, however.

[Sunnz]

Apple (well... NeXT) used an open kernel and an open web browsing engine, but the windowing system and window manager were created by Apple...

"Apple's Mac OS X operating system uses a central window server (created entirely by Apple)" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_PostScript

P.S: If it weren't by Apple , the folks at the KDE project wouldn't
be able to pass ACID2...

Well... DRM is the only way for Apple to sell songs. If they sold songs without DRM no record label would ever let their artists songs to be available on iTunes...:)Don't forget that they also contribute the code the got from FreeBSD back to FreeBSD. Whoever said that they took from open source and not contribute back to it is totally NOT true and misleading the reader - as a matter of fact it is often that Darwin developers are also commiters in FreeBSD!!!


Hardware support. They barely support any hardware by choice, then tout the stability of their OS. It is much easier to make an OS stable if you restrict it to specific hardware configurations. Easier to the point Apple would be making fools of themselves if their OS wasn't as least as stable as Windows. I applaud Microsoft and GNU/Linux developers for covering as much hardware as they do even if it is not always perfectly supported. Things we take for granted, e.g. swapping motherboards, processors or GPUs, are freedoms that wouldn't exist in the brave new Apple world.I don't know what you are getting here. Apple is a hardware company. They build the hardware to support their own OS. Correct me if I am wrong here, but they don't sell motherboard, so in that respective they aren't perfect... but it shouldn't be compared to MS or Linux in the sense you are going, since neither MS or Linux distributions design their own hardware for their own OS in the way Apple does it. The way I see it is that Apple makes a perfect fusion of the hardware and software, that they are like one piece - exactly the reason why I use it for laptop, because I don't want to open it and start changing the motherboard or what not.


When the Mac OS becomes more popular, you can bet your bottom dollar that OS X will get the same "features" as Windows Vista as regards DRM and content encryption for HD video. Except, this will be worse, because most of the time you can't just replace the video card in a Mac with a card that supports encryption.They have DRM in iTunes only because the music artists/companies says that they have to... and I think the way they do it isn't too bad, you can after all, burn as many CDs as you like, put it on 7 or 8 different iPods (sorry I don't own an iPod so I don't know the exact number.) compared to the Zune where you can get music from another Zune only to have it for 3 days.

And besides, Jobs want persuade the music industry to remove DRM from iTunes anyway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6337275.stm

And finally, there are no DRM in OS X, not even product activation - you can technically install OS X on as many computers as you like.

[Trebuchet]

If there is anything that is dangerous on the Apple platform more than DRM or lock-in? It's the fanboy cult. I've seen similar attitudes from Linux junkies, although theirs tends to take the form of attacking Microsoft more than attacking critics of Linux. Fortunately this isn't widespread, but it's out there.

[Trebuchet]

And finally, there are no DRM in OS X, not even product activation - you can technically install OS X on as many computers as you like.Sure, but you've pretty much gotta install it on their hardware so that severely limits the usefulness of no DRM on Apple. (They did allow Apple clones for a while in the 80's, but dumped that practice fairly quickly.) They control both the hardware and the software, meaning they get you both ways. That's not immoral or illegal, it just is the way business is done. But it does tend to make their computers cost more than Windows and especially Linux machines.

[Sunnz]

Sure, but you've pretty much gotta install it on their hardware so that severely limits the usefulness of no DRM on Apple. (They did allow Apple clones for a while in the 80's, but dumped that practice fairly quickly.) They control both the hardware and the software, meaning they get you both ways. That's not immoral or illegal, it just is the way business is done. But it does tend to make their computers cost more than Windows and especially Linux machines.
That's not entirely true. They are a hardware company, you buy the computer with OSX. The OS X CDs are an upgrade, that's why there are no different OEM/retail/upgrade price.

[Trebuchet]

I found this on The Guardian (a British newspaper) and thought it might be appropriate here in light of the current discussion:


I hate Macs

Charlie Brooker
Monday February 5, 2007
The Guardian

Unless you have been walking around with your eyes closed, and your head encased in a block of concrete, with a blindfold tied round it, in the dark - unless you have been doing that, you surely can't have failed to notice the current Apple Macintosh campaign starring David Mitchell and Robert Webb, which has taken over magazines, newspapers and the internet in a series of brutal coordinated attacks aimed at causing massive loss of resistance. While I don't have anything against shameless promotion per se (after all, within these very brackets I'm promoting my own BBC4 show, which starts tonight at 10pm), there is something infuriating about this particular blitz. In the ads, Webb plays a Mac while Mitchell adopts the mantle of a PC. We know this because they say so right at the start of the ad.

"Hello, I'm a Mac," says Webb.

"And I'm a PC," adds Mitchell.

They then perform a small comic vignette aimed at highlighting the differences between the two computers. So in one, the PC has a "nasty virus" that makes him sneeze like a plague victim; in another, he keeps freezing up and having to reboot. This is a subtle way of saying PCs are unreliable. Mitchell, incidentally, is wearing a nerdy, conservative suit throughout, while Webb is dressed in laid-back contemporary casual wear. This is a subtle way of saying Macs are cool.

The ads are adapted from a near-identical American campaign - the only difference is the use of Mitchell and Webb. They are a logical choice in one sense (everyone likes them), but a curious choice in another, since they are best known for the television series Peep Show - probably the best sitcom of the past five years - in which Mitchell plays a repressed, neurotic underdog, and Webb plays a selfish, self-regarding poseur. So when you see the ads, you think, "PCs are a bit rubbish yet ultimately lovable, whereas Macs are just smug, preening tossers." In other words, it is a devastatingly accurate campaign.

I hate Macs. I have always hated Macs. I hate people who use Macs. I even hate people who don't use Macs but sometimes wish they did. Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults; computers for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; computers for people who earnestly believe in feng shui.

PCs are the ramshackle computers of the people. You can build your own from scratch, then customise it into oblivion. Sometimes you have to slap it to make it work properly, just like the Tardis (Doctor Who, incidentally, would definitely use a PC). PCs have charm; Macs ooze pretension. When I sit down to use a Mac, the first thing I think is, "I hate Macs", and then I think, "Why has this rubbish aspirational ornament only got one mouse button?" Losing that second mouse button feels like losing a limb. If the ads were really honest, Webb would be standing there with one arm, struggling to open a packet of peanuts while Mitchell effortlessly tore his apart with both hands. But then, if the ads were really honest, Webb would be dressed in unbelievably po-faced avant-garde clothing with a gigantic glowing apple on his back. And instead of conducting a proper conversation, he would be repeatedly congratulating himself for looking so cool, and banging on about how he was going to use his new laptop to write a novel, without ever getting round to doing it, like a mediocre idiot.

Cue 10 years of nasal bleating from Mac-likers who profess to like Macs not because they are fashionable, but because "they are just better". Mac owners often sneer that kind of defence back at you when you mock their silly, posturing contraptions, because in doing so, you have inadvertently put your finger on the dark fear haunting their feeble, quivering soul - that in some sense, they are a superficial semi-person assembled from packaging; an infinitely sad, second-rate replicant who doesn't really know what they are doing here, but feels vaguely significant and creative each time they gaze at their sleek designer machine. And the more deftly constructed and wittily argued their defence, the more terrified and wounded they secretly are.

Aside from crowing about sartorial differences, the adverts also make a big deal about PCs being associated with "work stuff" (Boo! Offices! Boo!), as opposed to Macs, which are apparently better at "fun stuff". How insecure is that? And how inaccurate? Better at "fun stuff", my ****. The only way to have fun with a Mac is to poke its insufferable owner in the eye. For proof, stroll into any decent games shop and cast your eye over the exhaustive range of cutting-edge computer games available exclusively for the PC, then compare that with the sort of rubbish you get on the Mac. Myst, the most pompous and boring videogame of all time, a plodding, dismal "adventure" in which you wandered around solving tedious puzzles in a rubbish magic kingdom apparently modelled on pretentious album covers, originated on the Mac in 1993. That same year, the first shoot-'em-up game, Doom, was released on the PC. This tells you all you will ever need to know about the Mac's relationship with "fun".

Ultimately the campaign's biggest flaw is that it perpetuates the notion that consumers somehow "define themselves" with the technology they choose. If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. Of course, that hasn't stopped me slagging off Mac owners, with a series of sweeping generalizations, for the past 900 words, but that is what the ads do to PCs. Besides, that's what we PC owners are like - unreliable, idiosyncratic and gleefully unfair. And if you'll excuse me now, I feel an unexpected crash coming.

[Trebuchet]

That's not entirely true. They are a hardware company, you buy the computer with OSX. The OS X CDs are an upgrade, that's why there are no different OEM/retail/upgrade price.No, they're a computer company. They don't sell Macs sans OS X; you have to buy the hardware to run the OS from them. (I know a few poor souls have patched together ways to install Mac OS on PC systems, but they are a tiny group of fanatics and not really relevant.)

If Mac OS ran on Intel systems without massive amounts of tweaking you could make the claim that they're a hardware company bundling their own OS, but they don't. You essentially can't run one without the other.

[beefcurry]

Hit the exact spot I was looking for! love that article

[Sunnz]

No, they're a computer company.A computer is a piece of hardware, so no I was not wrong. This doesn't contribute to the point we are discussing anyway. And if you really want to get technical, then we are BOTH wrong, since they dropped the "computer" word from their name anyway.


They don't sell Macs sans OS X; you have to buy the hardware to run the OS from them. Do you mean "with" not "sans"?

If so, you just contradicted yourself right there.

If Mac OS ran on Intel systems without massive amounts of tweaking you could make the claim that they're a hardware company bundling their own OS, but they don't. You essentially can't run one without the other.

What are you talking about, all current Macs are Intel based and they all run OS X!!!

There is much more to a computer's design than its processor, for example, mvme68k and mac68k systems both use the same processor, but the machines they are based on are very different, and thus require a very different kernel.

BTW, I've read that I hate Macs article, I must say, I took it very serious at first, but this quote has made it irrelevant:
I hate Macs. I have always hated Macs. I hate people who use Macs. I even hate people who don't use Macs but sometimes wish they did. Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults; computers for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; computers for people who earnestly believe in feng shui.
I mean, yes I can accept that no single system is perfect for everyone... but he actually going to hate people for using what didn't work for him??? That's extreme arrogant and just should NOT be taken seriously. And later on in his article:
When I sit down to use a Mac, the first thing I think is, "I hate Macs", and then I think, "Why has this rubbish aspirational ornament only got one mouse button?"Ok, here's he is going to using something he already hates, how's that going to work? And then he thinks Apple made him to extend his arm to press the CTRL button to right click?

I can go say I am trying out Windows, and I hate Windows, so after trying Windows, I hate Windows. And I think Windows has made me extend BOTH of my arms to press CTRL-ALT-DEL?

[BWF89]

Apple is as bad as Microsoft.

But if your going to use an OS that restricts your freedom why not use one that actually works good. And it's Unix based to boot.

[entangled]

The article 'I hate macs' is a great explanation of prejudice. We all have prejudices but we don't all make them so explicit. I don't think you should take this article any more seriously than you would some political extremist.
I have a mac mini for its form factor and low power consumption, but I choose to exclusively run ubuntu on it, because the OS works well and suits me. Most will accept what they are given, MACOSX or Windows. Its what the majority always do.

[Sunnz]

I use MacBook as a portable computer, and still runs OS X on it. It is a great OS for (kinda of) embedded device like a laptop, and since I use it for school it is good to run MS Office and Photoshop just in case... it is definitely better than running Office and Photoshop on Windows!!! Lastly I like to play around of OS X anyway - the kernel is open, so is the FreeBSD userland, it comes with software development kit tool so it can be fun.

I can't see myself buying a Mac for Desktop though... got an open source rock solid UNIX running on the desktop anyway, plus I can easily play around with the hardware and stuff, which is just as fun as playing around in OS X.

[steven8]

The "I Hate Macs" piece is nothing more than a bit of wry observational humor. More or less like something Garrison Keillor may have written. With that being said though, it is a comic piece, and how many times have any of us listened to a comedian such as George Carlin or Jerry Seinfeld when, after wiping the tears from our eyes due to a funny line said, "Oh my God! That is SO true!" That's what a good comedian does. He or she takes the 'unnoticed' or the 'ignored for the sake of getting along peacefully' bits about life and exposes them for what they really are. . .and they make us all laugh. There is much more humor in the truth.

I have found the same to be true about Mac users I have known. The son of my partner at work is a perfect example of the stainlessly perfect Mac user. Everything he does is better or more perfect. The things he owns are better than yours. His children are more perfect than yours, etc. I believe the true die-in-the-wool Mac user, such as he, 'becomes' Steven Jobs.

Now, with all THAT being said, I have to admit that I wouldn't having a new Mac! I think they look really neat!! :-)

[Rodneyck]

Loved the article! I really admire someone who cuts through the bullsh*t and speaks his mind. He was doing the same thing the mac commercials do, only without the subtlety. I also believe a lot of the "I hate Macs" confessions were used to illustrate this fact, and his point.

My only problem with Macs is the way they lock in the hardware to the OS. I have always built my computers. I have no idea why others don't. You get better hardware for the same amount of money (or usually less) than if purchasing a Dell, emachines or a mac. If you are savy enough to set up codecs and reconfigure xorg.conf files in linux, then you can certainly build your own computer, its quite simple. Upgrading is a snap, and you can really breathe life into your systems instead of filling up the landfills and buying a whole new one just to run Vista or OSX.

[Sunnz]

Loved the article! I really admire someone who cuts through the bullsh*t and speaks his mind. He was doing the same thing the mac commercials do, only without the subtlety. I also believe a lot of the "I hate Macs" confessions were used to illustrate this fact, and his point.

My only problem with Macs is the way they lock in the hardware to the OS. I have always built my computers. I have no idea why others don't. You get better hardware for the same amount of money (or usually less) than if purchasing a Dell, emachines or a mac. If you are savy enough to set up codecs and reconfigure xorg.conf files in linux, then you can certainly build your own computer, its quite simple. Upgrading is a snap, and you can really breathe life into your systems instead of filling up the landfills and buying a whole new one just to run Vista or OSX.
You got to understand that they are getting more profit selling a Mac than its OS. And besides, it is their their integration of the hardware and the software that made their system so great, that's the biggest selling point of the Mac, you get one piece of product that is a combined fine work instead of a generic OS installed on a generic PC.

[Torajima]

God, not other rant against Macs...

Apple isn't anywhere near as bad as Microsoft. I get the feeling most of the folks on this thread have never touched a Mac... I've used both OSes extensively (I administer 20 plus computers, about half of each).

OSX isn't perfect... not by a longshot... but it's more intuitive, more robust, and more secure than Windows. And yeah, it's prettier too.

The DRM argument is simply ridiculous. Unless you buy music from the iTunes Store, you will never have to deal with DRM on either your iPod or iTunes. You can rip plain old mp3s.

And Steve Jobs has repeatedly said that he HATES DRM (as recently as yesterday... see www.macrumors.com), and only uses it with the iTunes Store because he was forced to by the major record labels. Macs have no other DRM to speak of. Those copy protected CDs which don't work on Windows PCs? They rip just fine on the Mac...

And I've never had a problem getting something repaired on the Mac. In fact, there are several stores "just around the corner" that service Macs. But only 1 of the Macs I deal with has ever had a hardware problem (fixed under warranty)... versus 6 or 7 of the PCs. And don't get me started on software issues we've had on the PCs... many requiring a reinstall of Windows (which isn't nearly as easy as reinstalling OSX).

Cost? Well, if you build your machine from scratch, of course a windows machine will be cheaper. But the new Macs are priced favorably against a Dell with comparative specs.

Yeah, in a perfect world we'd all be running Linux machines with open source software. But for now, Apple is a nice alternative for those not quite ready to make the jump to Linux.

[Alfa989]

I think he was talking about this (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60839). Not sure if it's still a problem today, however.
That article dates back from 2001... It's not a problem now...:)

[Alfa989]

I have always built my computers. I have no idea why others don't.

Because 90% of the users don't know how a computer works... Plus I haven't got the time to play with my hardware...:)

[floke]

Apple on DRM...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6338603.stm

Is it me, or do they not quite seem to get it??

[Shay Stephens]

Apple on DRM...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6338603.stm

Is it me, or do they not quite seem to get it??

This is the first glimmer of hope for me with Apple actually.

[Trebuchet]

A computer is a piece of hardware, so no I was not wrong. This doesn't contribute to the point we are discussing anyway. And if you really want to get technical, then we are BOTH wrong, since they dropped the "computer" word from their name anyway.Ah yes, what they call themselves is an irrefutable argument, like the People's Republic of Korea must be a democracy.


Do you mean "with" not "sans"?

If so, you just contradicted yourself right there.From the Oxford English Dictionary:

sans /sanz/
· prep. poetic/literary or humorous without.
– ORIGIN ME: from OFr. sanz, from L. sine ‘without’.


What are you talking about, all current Macs are Intel based and they all run OS X!!!My bad. I should have said Windows-compatible hardware. Until I can slap OS X into my old Pentium system, Apple is not truly Intel-capable. It runs only on a limited line of Intel processors, and does not use Windows-capable motherboards.


BTW, I've read that I hate Macs article, I must say, I took it very serious at first, but this quote has made it irrelevant:I mean, yes I can accept that no single system is perfect for everyone... but he actually going to hate people for using what didn't work for him??? That's extreme arrogant and just should NOT be taken seriously. And later on in his article:Ok, here's he is going to using something he already hates, how's that going to work? And then he thinks Apple made him to extend his arm to press the CTRL button to right click?

I can go say I am trying out Windows, and I hate Windows, so after trying Windows, I hate Windows. And I think Windows has made me extend BOTH of my arms to press CTRL-ALT-DEL?Forgive me for trying to slip in a bit of humor. I thought the author was clearly being rather tongue-in-cheek in his article, but I'd better notify the authorities because he's obviously about to go postal on the next Mac user he sees.

[Sunnz]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

sans /sanz/
· prep. poetic/literary or humorous without.
– ORIGIN ME: from OFr. sanz, from L. sine ‘without’.

My bad. I should have said Windows-compatible hardware. Until I can slap OS X into my old Pentium system, Apple is not truly Intel-capable. It runs only on a limited line of Intel processors, and does not use Windows-capable motherboards.I still don't see what's your problem here.

Apple isn't a software company like Microsoft. (Although Microsoft does sell hardware now). The goal is to sell one pieces of product that are designed to work well, making OS X work on generic hardware are irrelevant. What you are essentially saying like complaining a fork doesn't work like a spoon.

[MaXqUE]

Hello:

Apple and Micro$oft are as different as apple are from potatos. They live in completely different worlds. Micro$oft manufactures no hardware except a mouse and now a gaming console.


Think about it. Apple seems as bad as Microsoft. They got DRM. Hardware lockup. Et cetera infinitum . I would like to hear from you regarding Apple.

Apple didn't really "get" DRM. I seriously doubt that the DRM in iTunes has anything to do with locking iTunes tracks to iPods. I worked in music retail for 10 years.. that's a decade. I saw the transition from LP to CD.

The DRM at the iTunes store was *most* definitely forced on Apple as part of the deal to allow their material to be sold there. The music industries evil ways predate the Internet. As far back as the mid-1980's top industry executives were furious about the sale of blank audio cassetes. One even acccued my customers of being theives because they recorded their CD's tothose blank cassetes. He categorically denied that a tape made from a CD was better than the music industries bulk copied cassettes. This was simply NOT true. My ears do not lie.

They even threatened lawsuits to consumers for copying CD's even though the must rampant illegal copying was taking place in South East Asia.

The music industry has a history of treating its customers with complete and utter contempt. That Steve Jobs was even able to make the deal he did with the industry for the iTunes store is ssomething of a miracle. What is even more astounding is how he stood up to the music industry when they demanded a price increase.

It is simply wrong toi blame Apple with pushing DRM on customers. That lunacy clearly lies at the feet of the music industry. You should be lobbying them and attacking them instead of Apple. Right now the music industry must be sitting back laughing as they watch Apple take the heat for something they instigated. Don't let them get a way with this.

If Apple was in favour of DRM, they would have required serial numbers to install their Operating System. There has never been a serial number required to install any Macintosh operating system. That is clearly different from Micro$oft.

Apple's hardware locki-down is mostly hardware based. Their OS is written to work on hardware they manufacture. It surely will not run well on just any standard PC. While you may be able to run the installer, the OS will cough and sputter and will not perform like it does on the hardware it was designed for.

One thing I do not like is Steve Jobs marketing speaches. But then I've never watched an opening address by Steve Jobs just for that reason. But take that for what it is -- advertising spin. Toss that out the door and look at what the company does. iPods are popular because of the design. Nothing else out there comes close to Apple's elegant design. Apple doesn't need DRM lock-in to sell iPods. They were a best seller before the iTunes store and will continue to be even if it shuts down.

Cheers,
MaXqUE

[Trebuchet]

I still don't see what's your problem here.

Apple isn't a software company like Microsoft. (Although Microsoft does sell hardware now). The goal is to sell one pieces of product that are designed to work well, making OS X work on generic hardware are irrelevant. What you are essentially saying like complaining a fork doesn't work like a spoon.No, Apple is (or was) a computer company which sold complete and self-contained systems. They are neither fish nor fowl (hardware or software) but both. Essentially their hardware needs their software to work. (If anyone is installing Linux or other opensource operating systems on Apple hardware, I haven't seen it.)

I do find it amusing that people who gripe about Windows copying MacOS X features don't seem to have any problem with Apple copying Windows' hardware so well Windows only needs a boot loader to run on Apples.

[Auria]

If anyone is installing Linux or other opensource operating systems on Apple hardware, I haven't seen it.

Err, aren't you on an Ubuntu forum? Ubuntu does run on macs. Not very well though, but this has to do because few mac users get involved into writing ubuntu drivers more than because of Apple's lock (which i disapprove, don't forget - but can somehow understand)

As for OS X only working on Apple's hardware, it is double-sided. True, it locks you. However, seeing how many Linux users have problems getting their hardware to work correctly, and even windows users... On mac, driver issues simply don't exist. You buy it and it works.

Of course i still think OpenSource is better - but when i tried Ubuntu i got tons of undetected hardware and similar issues that were not solved after weeks of trying. So bascially i'm all for linux ideologically, but until i buy a new computer where my hardware is hopefully detected my mac does make it easy.



I do find it amusing that people who gripe about Windows copying MacOS X features don't seem to have any problem with Apple copying Windows' hardware so well Windows only needs a boot loader to run on Apples.

I think people should just stop arguing about that. Once a feature that works well is invented, it is just normal that others implement it too.

[Trebuchet]

I think people should just stop arguing about that. Once a feature that works well is invented, it is just normal that others implement it too.Once upon a time bouncing ideas back and forth was called "brainstorming" and all progress came from things like that. Now it's considered copying.

Imagine where we'd be with cars if we'd used that approach. "Sorry, Mr. Ford, but Mercedes has invented the round tire so you'll have to use some other shape; maybe a hexagon. Oh, and don't try to use the ignition key idea either. It's ours." ;)

[Trebuchet]

Of course i still think OpenSource is better - but when i tried Ubuntu i got tons of undetected hardware and similar issues that were not solved after weeks of trying. So bascially i'm all for linux ideologically, but until i buy a new computer where my hardware is hopefully detected my mac does make it easy.I'm not switching to a Mac only because my budget can't quite make it. In a few years, who knows? Of course, by then Linux might have worked out all the little bugs that you mentioned and I'll be running Linux exclusively. Not just yet, though.

Windows is my comfort zone, but that doesn't mean I can't get uncomfortable if MS gives me sufficient reason.

[Sunnz]

No, Apple is (or was) a computer company which sold complete and self-contained systems. They are neither fish nor fowl (hardware or software) but both. Essentially their hardware needs their software to work. (If anyone is installing Linux or other opensource operating systems on Apple hardware, I haven't seen it.)Ok so they make both hardware and software that are designed to work together in mind, hence the great integration of the final product. But yea you can run Linux on it, despite the general 'myth' of Linux isn't supporting as many hardware as Windows, it runs on more systems than Windows ever do. Mac OS X doesn't support hardware is a general mis-believe, all the hardware I used on Windows were required to from CDs when I plug them in, whereas on the Mac I just plug them in and can use them right away.

I do find it amusing that people who gripe about Windows copying MacOS X features don't seem to have any problem with Apple copying Windows' hardware so well Windows only needs a boot loader to run on Apples.Probably the very thing I would agree with you. The whole Windows copied from Mac copied from Linux copied from BSD thing is ridiculously stupid. It is called learning. When I use Linux on a desktop I would like a GUI for web surfing as I did on Mac/Windows, so make it happen. When I use Mac I want to have virtual desktops like Linux, so go implement it. When I use Windows I want to have both of these things, it is good that there are currently no strict software patent, so keep improving your OS and make it more useful everyday!!!

I mean, it would be suck more than a billion vacuum machines if no one copies from each other. Can you imagine only Macs has GUI and only UNIX has multi-task and no one else does just because we don't want to be copy-cats? That'll be more horrible than anything the MS guys has ever done.

(Of course, be prepare to get flamed if you copy things and pretend that you invented it, that's a really, really bad thing. But still copy nonetheless.)

The 'Windows' hardware that Apple is supposedly "copying", well, the PPC chip from IBM was going nowhere. I always wanted to buy a Macintosh laptop before the Intel-switch, but the PPC chip used in laptops are very, very outdated, so I have a Linux Laptop instead since there were no better choice. I guess there were many laptop consumers like me, so Apple doesn't have much of a choice and had to go with Intel who are really advancing in their CPU. The core Darwin has always been running on x86 btw, so the transition is relatively smooth. I bet MS can't port Windows to PPC as easily.

If you were talking about how Apple is using more and more standard peripherals like PCI, USB or what not... tell you what, I wouldn't buy the Mac otherwise. I don't get a Mac to 'join' the Mac cult, it is for work and it needs to be compatible with other devices that I use.

[Sunnz]

I'm not switching to a Mac only because my budget can't quite make it. In a few years, who knows? Of course, by then Linux might have worked out all the little bugs that you mentioned and I'll be running Linux exclusively. Not just yet, though.

Windows is my comfort zone, but that doesn't mean I can't get uncomfortable if MS gives me sufficient reason.
Is this (http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/) a sufficient reason for you?

[MaXqUE]

Lots of companies have sold hardware/Software combinations. IBM. had a system called NetVista which was an OS tied to software which they sold to educational institutions.


No, Apple is (or was) a computer company which sold complete and self-contained systems. They are neither fish nor fowl (hardware or software) but both. Essentially their hardware needs their software to work. (If anyone is installing Linux or other opensource operating systems on Apple hardware, I haven't seen it.)


However, you must not have heard of Yellow Dog Linux. The Yellow Dog Linux distribution was put together specifically to run on Apple hardware (at first), not only did they create the distribution, they sold it Apple Computers pre-installed with Yellow Dog Linux. They still do, though the company is known as Terra-Soft (http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/tss_home.shtml). Check out their online store. (http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/)

You might also notice that they are selling Play Stations pre-installed with Yellow Dog Linux.

Cheers,
MaXqUE

[Trebuchet]

Is this (http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/) a sufficient reason for you?Nope. I don't download music or watch DVDs on my computer so it doesn't affect me. If and when DRM prevents me from listening to my legally purchased CD's or watching purchased movies, then it might. It would have to be a real pain, because so far the shortfalls of Linux far outweigh the theoretically onerous burden of DRM (which was hardly Microsoft's idea in the first place). My own guess is that eventually all DRM media will require DRM software to be in place to even play, which means DRM will eventually infest Linux distros as well. The open source movement is not going to escape the ramifications of DRM. You think Ubuntu won't cave on this when the RIAA hits them with a $100 million lawsuit?

To my mind, DRM was just another "reason" to hate Microsoft for people who'd pretty much made up their minds to hate Microsoft anyway. Why isn't Apple getting the same level of vitriol about DRM?

Good article, though, and nice Linux website. Thanks for posting it.

[Trebuchet]

Lots of companies have sold hardware/Software combinations. IBM. had a system called NetVista which was an OS tied to software which they sold to educational institutions.



However, you must not have heard of Yellow Dog Linux. The Yellow Dog Linux distribution was put together specifically to run on Apple hardware (at first), not only did they create the distribution, they sold it Apple Computers pre-installed with Yellow Dog Linux. They still do, though the company is known as Terra-Soft (http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/tss_home.shtml). Check out their online store. (http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/)

You might also notice that they are selling Play Stations pre-installed with Yellow Dog Linux.
Nope, I hadn't heard of it. Thanks for enlightening me.

[entangled]

Ubuntu does run on macs. Not very well though, but this has to do because few mac users get involved into writing ubuntu drivers more than because of Apple's lock (which i disapprove, don't forget - but can somehow understand)[
Well - I have reported before that Ubuntu runs very well on an Intel Mac Mini. All the hardware I have works, even bluetooth, wireless card, printer (easier than with OSX), windows networking. Issues were minor and less than I have had with a standard desktop.

[Sunnz]

Nope. I don't download music or watch DVDs on my computer so it doesn't affect me. If and when DRM prevents me from listening to my legally purchased CD's or watching purchased movies, then it might. It would have to be a real pain, because so far the shortfalls of Linux far outweigh the theoretically onerous burden of DRM (which was hardly Microsoft's idea in the first place). My own guess is that eventually all DRM media will require DRM software to be in place to even play, which means DRM will eventually infest Linux distros as well. The open source movement is not going to escape the ramifications of DRM. You think Ubuntu won't cave on this when the RIAA hits them with a $100 million lawsuit?

To my mind, DRM was just another "reason" to hate Microsoft for people who'd pretty much made up their minds to hate Microsoft anyway. Why isn't Apple getting the same level of vitriol about DRM?

Good article, though, and nice Linux website. Thanks for posting it.
Compare to badvista.org, yes, this is an excellent article, the guys at badvista just hate MS to guts.

However, I think the problem of DRM is a lot more than just limiting digital contents like music. I didn't care that much to start with... but the problem here is hardware. MS is demanding hardware manufactures to build hardware to support DRM in Vista.

This could be a major problem for Linux users like me (I don't know how much Linux you use.), it could possibly means more hardware in-compatible issues to the already bad situation in Linux.

Secondly, and this applies to everyone, these DRM-supporting hardware will be more expensive, which means the cost of implementing DRM are passed to end users which has the least benefit from the introduction of DRM.

Ethical issues aside, there is still a technological issue - implementing DRM requires time and money, which could have being used to develop better technology, this is taking away (if not, stealing!!!) the benefit a paying end user should get!!!

[Auria]

Ubuntu does run on macs. Not very well though, but this has to do because few mac users get involved into writing ubuntu drivers more than because of Apple's lock (which i disapprove, don't forget - but can somehow understand)[
Well - I have reported before that Ubuntu runs very well on an Intel Mac Mini. All the hardware I have works, even bluetooth, wireless card, printer (easier than with OSX), windows networking. Issues were minor and less than I have had with a standard desktop.

I should have specified i only talked about PPC ones ( well, MY computer in particular ;) )

[AlphaMack]

Apple's hardware locki-down is mostly hardware based. Their OS is written to work on hardware they manufacture. It surely will not run well on just any standard PC. While you may be able to run the installer, the OS will cough and sputter and will not perform like it does on the hardware it was designed for.


Not by a long shot.

Apple's lock-in extends beyond their hardware. They're more than happy to accept open source formats into their programs...but when it comes time to save your work? You're stuck with one of their proprietary formats.

Want to import your mbox files into Mail? Sorry, Tiger doesn't work with mbox. Well, it does, but if you want Spotlight to work with Mail, you'll need to save your messages in the undocumented and proprietary .emlx format.

I can go on and on about the other apps (iCal, Address Book, etc.). Speaking of Address Book, sure, you can export vCards but you'll find that the fields are not always kept intact upon importation into other programs (URL fields always break when introducing vCards into Evolution).

Or maybe you can read up on Ron Braun's thoughts (http://www.opendarwin.org/~bbraun/) and what Apple really thinks about "open source."

As far as the OS "not running well on any standard PC," have you forgotten about NeXTSTEP? NeXT was all about hardware lock-in until it was clear as day that the business model was a failure and the OS was ported to other architectures, including x86. Anyone who knew about the history of NeXT already knew about the existence of OS X on x86. It certainly was no "secret" as SJ was touting through his RDF.

OSx86 has plenty of people running OS X on generic PC boxes. Apple deliberately breaks OS X through incremental upgrades in an effort to discourage this cohort.

If Apple wanted to, they could release OS X for x86 right now. But SJ loves his 2% marketshare.

One last thing, isn't the TPM enforcement a form of DRM? I believe so. Why else would Apple disregard BIOS in favor of EFI? (Hint: Has nothing to do with using 'new' technology.)

[3rdalbum]

I should have specified i only talked about PPC ones ( well, MY computer in particular ;) )

It depends which one you've got. Mine doesn't run too badly. Sound-In and my modem aren't supported, but lots of x86 machines have worse problems than that. The biggest problem with Ubuntu on PPC is with closed-source stuff - except for Opera and some server applications, none of them work.

[AlphaMack]

Here you go, yet another example of the Apple lock-in.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=263234

Apple deliberately crippled DAAP to keep third party clients out. (Can anyone recall the iTunes 4.0.1 fiasco after everyone found out the sharing workaround then?)

[3rdalbum]

One last thing, isn't the TPM enforcement a form of DRM? I believe so. Why else would Apple disregard BIOS in favor of EFI? (Hint: Has nothing to do with using 'new' technology.)

TPMs work with a BIOS as well, I believe. And EFI was used partly because of pressure from Intel and partly because it's simply a better (faster, more flexible, less buggy) system. BIOS is old technology that should have been obseleted a decade ago.

[TheWizzard]

i don't like apple :twisted:

1) apple is harming the environment more than any other electronics producer
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/assets/graphics/ranking-guide-dec
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/electronics-companies-race-061206

2) i cannot use the music format i want (ogg) on my ipod

3) a powerbook costs 2.5 times as much as a blank non-apple laptop with the same specifications

4) people with macs irritate me like hell. they seem to carry their powerbooks with them all the time and always seem to find a moment to switch it on and do "something". in the meanwhile telling everyone that apple is great because it "just works". and when something doesn't work (like recognising a very general USB flash drive) they blame microsoft. :shock:

[Alfa989]

I cannot use the music format i want (ogg) on my ipod

Apple doesn't give the iPod .ogg playing capabilities cause pretty much no one uses .oggs...



A powerbook costs 2.5 times as much as a blank non-apple laptop with the same specifications
Comparing a MacBook Pro 17" model with a Dell XPS M1710 with the same specs, the Dell costs 3473$ and the Mac 2799$...
Comparing the Superdrive white MacBook with a Dell XPS M1210 with nearly the same specs (13" vs 12.1") The Dell costs 2227$ and the MacBook 1474$
:D



And when something doesn't work (like recognising a very general USB flash drive) they blame microsoft. :shock:
What? It's impossible that Mac OS X doesn't recognize a UBS drive...:neutral:

[Sunnz]

Yea I as a Mac user agrees with 1) and 2); Apple is doing 'something' about environmental waste but is simply not there yet, 2 well I love using OGG too and I probably would have brought an iPod it supports it natively. But not many mp3 players out there supports OGG, maybe iRiver?

[TheWizzard]

Apple doesn't give the iPod .ogg playing capabilities cause pretty much no one uses .oggs...

nope, quite a lot of people do use ogg because it is much better then aac or mp3. apple doesn't want people to use it because the want to chain people to aac with drm.
iriver comes with ogg support.



Comparing a MacBook Pro 17" model with a Dell XPS M1710 with the same specs, the Dell costs 3473$ and the Mac 2799$...
Comparing the Superdrive white MacBook with a Dell XPS M1210 with nearly the same specs (13" vs 12.1") The Dell costs 2227$ and the MacBook 1474$
:D


when i was looking for a new laptop last year, the mac i liked was around €2300. i got a slick looking diamond with exactly the same specifications for less than €1000.

additional 500MB ram costed €100 for my diamond and €150 for the powerbook. why?



What? It's impossible that Mac OS X doesn't recognize a UBS drive...:neutral:
indeed it doesn't happen when you live in a reality distortion field. in the real world it does happen. it was a very common usb drive, which i used on different windows and linux machines. never caused me trouble. except on my apple-zealot friend's mac.

[Alfa989]

nope, quite a lot of people do use ogg because it is much better then aac or mp3. apple doesn't want people to use it because the want to chain people to aac with drm.
iriver comes with ogg support.

Every guy that I know that uses some kind of losless encoding uses alac...
Apple doesn't like DRM, they are not forcing anyone to use it...
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/


When i was looking for a new laptop last year, the mac i liked was around €2300. i got a slick looking diamond with exactly the same specifications for less than €1000.

Take a look now, a Mac costs more or less the same as a good/average quality PC with the exact or nearly exact same specs:
http://www.box.net/p/alfa98920530 (Get the PDF)


indeed it doesn't happen when you live in a reality distortion field. in the real world it does happen. it was a very common usb drive, which i used on different windows and linux machines. never caused me trouble. except on my apple-zealot friend's mac.

Are you sure you didn't connect it to a FireWire port? :D
That's very strange... Well, happened to me one time, but it was a USD HD (A friend's Fedora didn't appear to like it much...):confused:

[TheWizzard]

Take a look now, a Mac costs more or less the same as a good/average quality PC with the exact or nearly exact same specs:
http://www.box.net/p/alfa98920530 (Get the PDF)

nice analysis. however, in my country the 15-inch macbook pro is €2.489 the 17-inch a lot more (http://www.apple.com/nl/macbook/).
i can (easily) find a laptop with the same or better specifications for around €1000.

i've been doing a lot of comparison last year when i wanted a new laptop. and if prices would have been comparative i would have considered the mac (to use with linux though).

[tokens]

Yea I as a Mac user agrees with 1) and 2); Apple is doing 'something' about environmental waste but is simply not there yet, 2 well I love using OGG too and I probably would have brought an iPod it supports it natively. But not many mp3 players out there supports OGG, maybe iRiver?
my player does. iAudio by cowon. it even supports FLAC!

[happy-and-lost]

Maybe I've misinterpreted something, but don't dual core machines need a special kernel (i.e. not a standard i386) to take advantage of both cores?

I was playing with a dual-core Mac the other day and the Terminal output of uname -r mentioned it running an i386 kernel a few times. This Mac was also *quite* slow (In spite of being worth about £1500)... surely one of Apple's USPs is the fact that their hardware and software go hand in hand?

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this Mac go much faster if it were running a more processor specific kernel?

[Alfa989]

This Mac was also *quite* slow (In spite of being worth about £1500)

What model was it?

[happy-and-lost]

@Alfa

Well, it was on display in the Apple store, it may of course be the fact that hundreds of people a day muck around with it that make it slow and prone to crashes... but still. An i386 kernel in a dual core machine? Come on Apple!

[3rdalbum]

That solves the mystery of why the latest Photoshop runs slower on Intel than on PPC, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the mystery of why Windows XP Pro runs faster on Intel than Mac OS X :-)

[MaXqUE]

Maybe I've misinterpreted something, but don't dual core machines need a special kernel (i.e. not a standard i386) to take advantage of both cores?

I was playing with a dual-core Mac the other day and the Terminal output of uname -r mentioned it running an i386 kernel a few times. This Mac was also *quite* slow (In spite of being worth about £1500)... surely one of Apple's USPs is the fact that their hardware and software go hand in hand?

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this Mac go much faster if it were running a more processor specific kernel?
Why don't you try it? You know Apple has opened the source code for the Kernel again. Many have compiled theeir own kernels for OS X in the past. So if you think that your custom compiled kernel can run Photoshop better go ahead. Certainly any other platform which Photophop currently runs on will not allow you the lusxury of compiling your own kernel.

Cheers.

[Sunnz]

Why shouldn't it be i386?

Intel Core processors are does NOT have AMD64 extensions until Core 2.

Apple has already done a lot of multi-processing work in the kernel level, who says i386 isn't dual core?

[TheWizzard]

Why shouldn't it be i386?

Intel Core processors are does NOT have AMD64 extensions until Core 2.

Apple has already done a lot of multi-processing work in the kernel level, who says i386 isn't dual core?

i386 is pre-pentium3. the first intel dual cores were using p4 processors if i'm not mistaken.
using a i686 kernel should speed up things a lot. it is totally weird to use a i386 kernel on a dual core.
you can check what kind of processors are in the pc with

cat /proc/cpuinfo
check "cpu family"

[Alfa989]

That solves the mystery of why the latest Photoshop runs slower on Intel than on PPC, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the mystery of why Windows XP Pro runs faster on Intel than Mac OS X :-)

Photoshop (CS2) is slower on Intel cause it's compiled for PPC chips, thus, it runs on an emulation layer... You can still use it, but don't expect the full speed that those Intel processors could deliver... We''l have to wait until CS3...:(

Rosetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29)

[Sunnz]

i386 is pre-pentium3. the first intel dual cores were using p4 processors if i'm not mistaken.
using a i686 kernel should speed up things a lot. it is totally weird to use a i386 kernel on a dual core.
you can check what kind of processors are in the pc with

cat /proc/cpuinfo
check "cpu family"
Just because it says i386 does not mean it is compiled especially for 386 machines. It is just a short-hand saying it is running on an Intel Machine than PPC. After-all, OS X has only been developed after Core processors.

If you type machine it says i486.

BTW, if you go download say Ubuntu it is Ubuntu 386, there isn't a separate ISO for each individual x86 processors. You can re-compile the kernel yourself but that's an entirely different story,. The same goes to FreeBSD, there is a 386, AMD64, PPC, etc... but not pentium 3, pentium 4, etc...

[MaXqUE]

Yes, Photoshop does not run natively on Intel Macs yet. Until the new release of the NEW version of Photoshop, it runs in Roisetta, in other words its running on an emulated PPC chip on your Intel macs. That's the reason for the slowness. Lots of people were upset at Adobe for not releasing a Fat binary for Photoshop, but it seems the new version of Adobe CS will be out earlier than expected with native support for Intel macs.

i386 is a generally accepted term for that particular CPU architecture. it is sometimes used interchangeably with the precise CPU type. Anything Adobe writes for the Intel Macs will have to be compiled using a compiler for that chip. The standard C compilers probably will not compile it correctly. GCC will also have to make sure it is up to date with this flavour of Intel chilp.

I hope you have actually compiled a program on LInux. It is something every Linux/unix user should experience. If you have run the GCC compiler you will have noticed that the compiler first checks to see which type of machine, OS and the exact CPU on which it is running. Then it checks to see what instructions are supplied in the configure script. One of the things it checks to see is if you are cross compiling for another architecture. It is not usually the case that programmers choose to cross compile programs if they have access to the real thing.

Adobe in all likely hood had access to Intel Macs long before they were for sale to the public. Also Apple's developers tools were re-written to enable the specific Intel chip on which the new machines would run.

Check all facts before you accuse someone or a company of mistakes like this. Common sense should tell you that the whole i386 scenario you've proposed just doesn't make sense.

Cheers,
MaXqUE

[TheWizzard]

Just because it says i386 does not mean it is compiled especially for 386 machines. It is just a short-hand saying it is running on an Intel Machine than PPC. After-all, OS X has only been developed after Core processors.

x86 is short-handed for intel processors. 386 is a particular processor (third generation; first 32 bit, etc). the 386 was succeeded by the 486 in 1990 and later by the 586. the 386, 486 and 586 are compatible for software. this is the reason ubuntu does not provide separate kernels.
if apple uses 386 generically for intel processors, it's their mistake, not mine.



Check all facts before you accuse someone or a company of mistakes like this. Common sense should tell you that the whole i386 scenario you've proposed just doesn't make sense.


who are you addressing?

[3rdalbum]

Photoshop (CS2) is slower on Intel cause it's compiled for PPC chips, thus, it runs on an emulation layer... You can still use it, but don't expect the full speed that those Intel processors could deliver... We''l have to wait until CS3...:(



I'm aware of Rosetta and what it does, but thanks for the link.

APC magazine has a review of Photoshop CS3, and they did the comparison between G5 and Intel on Mac OS. They found that their G5 machine was a minute faster in one of their tests... I don't remember the exact details, but I think the Intel machine took 6 minutes and the G5 took about 5 minutes.

CS3 is a fat binary.

Interesting stuff - they couldn't explain the speed difference, apart from the G5 having more RAM.