The first computer I purchased was an iMac, 2nd generation I think. I needed something physically compact, relatively cheap, and didn’t need it to do a lot. Most of the computers I had access to were Macs, and my roommate at the time was a dyed-in-the-wool Machead, so the thousand dollar iMac seemed like a pretty good choice, despite the lack of a writeable, removable media drive and everything else.

It was one of the worst purchases I have ever made, and serves me right for not doing my homework. The “flavor” iMac I ordered was grape, but apparently they make a model called "lemon," because that is what they shipped to me. Even my roommate was at a loss about this machine’s strange behavior. I’ve used a number of different Macs since then (though I’ve little experience with OS X), and few of them have seemed especially stable, or more so than the PCs I’ve used. The machine boots and you’re supposed to see the happy little smiling Mac face. When it boots and the smiling little man is accompanied by a blinking question mark, you know you’ve got problems. They can’t even give you a useable error message, just a question mark, like the blank expression you will see on the technician’s face when you ask him to fix it.

I think that’s what I ended up hating the most about Mac: their really gae marketing campaign. When I got my iMac, it came with a big poster with the different “flavors” arranged in a circle. At the bottom of the poster it simply read “Yummy.” Gae. Consider when you buy a Mac that they cost twice as much as a comparable PC precisely because of this poster and their space-age looking case. And for that you get a machine whose hardware can’t be reconfigured except maybe to add some RAM.

Since then I’ve built two Windows-based PCs that can each outperform a new Mac costing as much as the PCs combined. Oh, and I can use whatever software I want. And upgrade the processor or motherboard or whatever in the future. I’ve been pretty happy in the PC world, I’ve certainly learned more about computers than I ever thought I wanted to, but I’ve learned to hate Microsoft in the process, for the typical reasons such as their petty activation process for Windows XP, which ties your copy of the OS to your particular hardware configuration, a real hastle for the “power user.”

These sorts of annoyances I think are pushing more and more people on the Linux bandwagon, which I’m considering as a long-term undertaking. Thanks in advance to anyone who can direct me to a good primer about Linux, someplace where I can get my feet wet on the subject. That seems like the next logical step for me.

Mac caters to the “I don’t want to understand it, I just want to use it” crowd, and they want you to pay more for it. That’s fine, but selling that type of technological naivety I think will ultimately lead many people to disappointment. Crap.

-sm

Virtual nonexistence of viruses, worms, spyware and adware.

Lack of serious security issues with hackers, if any are found, updates are quickly released.

I think it's the false sense of security that baffles me most. It'd be like saying "I don't wear condoms because I only fuck overpriced hookers." And then, when it turns out you can get AIDS from them, too, you hope they release a cure quickly. Like someone said above, most of the mac users I know are lazy about security and will be totally screwed if they ever get burned. But I guess that's ok for some people--I'm just not one of them.

I have to disagree with ANDREW, who says the personal experience isn't important, because it's the only thing that matters. People all compute differently, we all have different likes, needs, goals, and use different devices to satisfy them. I'm glad that the mac serves you well, and I'm glad your 8 friends like it, too. That's 9 more people I will never have to help with windows problems. If you have to use the mac to keep yourself free from virii, spyware, etc. then so be it. My personal experience has shown me that I can use xp for...hmmm nearly 2 and 1/2 years.... without any problems. Everyone is different, and should act accordingly.

I won't deny that the mac is definitely better at some stuff than anything else I've tried. That's ok with me, but it's not enough of a reason for me to want a mac. Fortunately, should I ever change my mind, I have a high-enough-paying job that I should be able to afford a mac. Even though I don't want one, they're still NOT CRAP.

Macintrash

warmowski wrote:Crap because of the amazingly high ratio of creepy dolts among the user base who take Macs way, way, WAY too seriously as a platform.

I could say the same about Slayer and their audience, but I still like their music despite their fans.

Matthew Taylor wrote:Why I say not crap:
Better OS software/hardware integration.

Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that Apple actually manufactures both the hardware and the software? You should see the hardware/software integration on my wife's cell phone - it's like the software was designed only for that hardware or something.

Matthew Taylor wrote:Virtual nonexistence of viruses, worms, spyware and adware

If you were a guy who wrote viruses for fun, you obviously want to fuck with as many people as possible. So why would you target a platform with like 5% market share? You'd be better off writing a virus for the Atari 2600.

Matthew Taylor wrote:Lack of serious security issues with hackers, if any are found, updates are quickly released.

See above point and the same is true for any of the big three (MacOS, Windows, Linux).

Matthew Taylor wrote:Built-in ethernet.
Built-in wireless networking: both airport and bluetooth ready.

Doesn't every OS released in the last three years have this?

Matthew Taylor wrote:Strong resale value.

Whoa. Is it the LSD damage kicking in or did someone just mention "strong resale value" and personal computers in the same non-ironic sentence? If you want resale value, buy an Italian sports car, a house overlooking a body of water or a mic with a VF14. Do not buy a computer. Come talk to me about resale value in 5 years when you'll be lucky to get $200 for your $5000 Lucite cube. Computers have a depreciation curve that overlays nicely with those of condoms and raw fish. That's just the way it works. Sorry. Go look up Moore's Law on Google. NOTE: You might be able to make a case for certain collectible computers (Apple I, Altair, etc.), but that's solely a function of scarcity.

Matthew Taylor wrote:Has the best UI on the planet and I hear that OS 10.4 supposedly will feature linux compatibility.

I will agree that the Mac OS is pretty. Apple has always had a fine team of industrial and UI designers. But you have to admit that it makes their life a lot easier to know that *everybody* who's going to run your super-fancy, alpha-blending madness shell will be doing so with a fat ass GPU in tow. What is Linux compatibility? How will that work when the two run on two different CPUs? An x86 emulator? Perf on that oughta smoke!

Face it. If you want a computer to be like a toaster (does only three things but does them well) and you have disposable income, buy a Mac. Else, buy a PC.

Dan

I think the main difference b/t Mac/PC is that you have to work a little harder to maintain a PC. But that being said, it's not that hard to do. 1/2 the price for the hardware, and free software for the amateur users.
When I upgrade my computer I'm going to build it onto a huge rack that will hold basically piece of audio gear I own. ..someday.......

Intern_8033 wrote:I didn't mean to imply that personal experience isn't important or doesn't matter. I meant that you can't evaluate the overall value of a technology based on a few exceedingly positive or negative experiences.

I'll agree that perhaps we shouldn't evaluate based on the extreme cases, but if that's all you've got, what can you do? Either way, whether you're an extreme case or the median, the "overall value" is completely dependent on personal experience; if the technology doesn't work for you--and you can't pay someone to use the technology for you (an engineer for example), or use it on your behalf (an astronaut)--then it doesn't have any value. It doesn't matter how great others think the technology is, if you don't like it, or it doesn't work for you, it doesn't have any value to you--and that's what matters.

Now, obviously, people shouldn't give up after one bad experience, but sometimes that's all you have. When to call it quits is for the individual to decide.

Intern_8033 wrote:Also, I'll happily pay a little more for a computer that looks nicer. If you look into it, you'll find that it isn't uncommon to pay money for something to look good. You may have done it yourself at some point. Why should you pay extra for a beautiful desk or vase or picture frame but not a computer?

Totally. I don't think this was addressed to me, but it was was, I have no argument. If I thought the macs looked nice, that would totally help justify their cost to me. I think everyone buys...oh...say... everything this way. My instruments, my bike, my clothes... I'm trying to think of an item where that doesn't apply........ Aha! A laundry chute; I wouldn't pay any more for a laundry chute no matter how pretty it was. OK, maybe I would. :-)

while it is probably true that you always pay more to add "fancy" to whatever item you're talking about, it's totally not true that that's a desirable thing, not in all cases anyways. if i had to choose between paying 2 grand for a fancy mac and 1200 for an ugly mac, it's a no-brainer. just like i'd rather buy a used guitar that has a couple scratches for $500 than buy it new for $1600. mac clearly has form in spades, but i tend to choose function over form pretty much every time. ugly PC, like i care. i'm not buying a computer so i can fuck it or take pictures of it. y'know?

danmohr wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:Why I say not crap:
Bet ter OS software/hardware integration.

Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that Apple actually manufactures both the hardware and the software? You should see the hardware/software integration on my wife's cell phone - it's like the software was designed only for that hardware or something.

Yes, I think it has to do everything with Apple deciding to retain control of both the manufacturing of the hardware and software to produce better integration in their final product.

danmohr wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:Virtual nonexistence of viruses, worms, spyware and adware

If you were a guy who wrote viruses for fun, you obviously want to fuck with as many people as possible. So why would you target a platform with like 5% market share? You'd be better off writing a virus for the Atari 2600.

Again, it leads to a better computing experience.

danmohr wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:Lack of serious security issues with hackers, if any are found, updates are quickly released.

See above point and the same is true for any of the big three (MacOS, Windows, Linux).

Not really, this has to do a lot more with the development of the operating system’s code than number of people trying to hack the system. Case in point, the Pentagon removed all of their Windows NT servers and replaced them with Mac servers. They don’t all of a sudden have less people trying to hack into their systems. Second part of that sentence has to do with security issues that are found being dealt with quickly, not talking 8 months to release patches. That’s completely irresponsible.

danmohr wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:Built-in ethernet.
Built-in wireless networking: both airport and bluetooth ready.

Doesn't every OS released in the last three years have this?

I’m talking about them being included in every hardware system here, not software support…

danmohr wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:Strong resale value.

Whoa. Is it the LSD damage kicking in or did someone just mention "strong resale value" and personal computers in the same non-ironic sentence? If you want resale value, buy an Italian sports car, a house overlooking a body of water or a mic with a VF14. Do not buy a computer. Come talk to me about resale value in 5 years when you'll be lucky to get $200 for your $5000 Lucite cube. Computers have a depreciation curve that overlays nicely with those of condoms and raw fish. That's just the way it works. Sorry. Go look up Moore's Law on Google. NOTE: You might be able to make a case for certain collectible computers (Apple I, Altair, etc.), but that's solely a function of scarcity.

No, I’m not talking about vehicles, I’m talking about computers and among computers Apples do have high resale value. That Lucite cube you’re talking about hasn’t been manufactured in 2 and half years, originally sold for $1,599 (not $5,000) old and routinely goes for $1,000 on eBay. Not bad for a 3 year old computer that’s not scarce, you can make the same case for every Apple computer and their resale value.

danmohr wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:Has the best UI on the planet and I hear that OS 10.4 supposedly will feature linux compatibility.

Face it. If you want a computer to be like a toaster (does only three things but does them well) and you have disposable income, buy a Mac. Else, buy a PC.

Dan

I’m not about to accuse you of drug usage or call you names. That’s immature and I can do a hell of a lot more than 3 things on my Apple computer.

I’ve used Unix, DOS, Linux, BeOs, every flavor of Windows and Apple operating systems. I deal with an assortment operating systems and computers on a daily basis and am open minded to each of their strengths and weaknesses. It seems like the information you have on Apple is based on the same boring disinformation that has nothing to do with actual reality these days, maybe tens years ago, but not today.

Matthew Taylor wrote:

warmowski wrote:Crap because of the amazingly high ratio of creepy dolts among the user base who take Macs way, way, WAY too seriously as a platform.

I could say the same about Slayer and their audience, but I still like their music despite their fans.

I guess it's easy to enjoy a band while avoiding associating with its more extreme fans.

There are a few strains on the analogy, though. Running with the Slayer idea, people don't buy Reign In Blood and whip it out every single time there is a task at hand that invites a soundtrack - meaning that they don't usually imagine that Slayer is equally appropriate music for a bong hit, a grandmother's funeral, a barbecue, wedding, a presentation to the shareholders, ambient soundtrack to Holocaust testimonies, etc.

Merely suggesting that there are better machines than Macs to use for many purposes is what gets you in the crosshairs of fundamentalists who insist otherwise. All platforms have their weaknesses and their "big lies", but in my experience, the people in denial of this common-sense conclusion are almost uniformly Mac users.

-r