Originally posted by: spikespiegal
As I've begun my switch to OS X, I can see why Mac users are so pro-Apple: the product is 1,000 times better in every aspect - stability, ease of use, cross-communication, even designer looks.
- Doesn' t require an I.Q. above 80 to use.
- Has such a low market share that Spyware/ Malware writers ignore OSX, and hence you can surf all the porn sites you want with admin rights because you don't have a clue to disable them anyways.
- Requires you to pay for service packs like OSX 10.4 Tiger, etc, to fix kernel sh^t that Apple should have fixed from the beggining while Windows Service packs are free.
- Fancy GUI that brainwashes the user to believe anything off of Apple.com is true, including claims the new Core duo is 3x faster than the prior G4 that Apple claimed was faster than anything Intel.
- Makes you hang out in Windows forums preaching how wonderfull the Applle is when in fact all you're doing is illustrating to others how you coulnd't handle such an idiot proof OS like XP.
Why did you turn this from a discussion into an attack? Why in the world are you so defensive? Rather than ranting about everything under the sun, let's take an objective look at your complaints:
1. "Doesn' t require an I.Q. above 80 to use."
Why are you so insistent that computers have to be difficult to use? Obviously not everyone has
your IQ of 160. When I work on Windows machines, I feel like I spend a lot more time fighting the system than I do when working on Apple OS X machines. Computers are meant to be tools to do things, whether it's entertaining you, doing work, whatever. It seems to me that the more straightforward and approachable the design, the more you can effectively work. Originally all cars were stick shift, but most people own automatics now. Does that make
them dumb? No, just not everyone wants to be a power user...same with computers.
2. "Has such a low market share that Spyware/ Malware writers ignore OSX, and hence you can surf all the porn sites you want with admin rights because you don't have a clue to disable them anyways."
So you're saying that Windows XP doesn't require any study at all to figure out how to configure administrative accounts and settings?
3. "Requires you to pay for service packs like OSX 10.4 Tiger, etc, to fix kernel sh^t that Apple should have fixed from the beggining while Windows Service packs are free."
Wait, wait. So Apple should have fixed these kernel problems from the beginning, but it's OK that Microsoft had problems and so they're allowed to release service packs? I agree that it's kind of silly for users to have to pay for major Apple service pack updates, but Apple does more than just bug fixes - they release new software and services as well. For example: iChat, Rendezvous networking, Exposé, Spotlight, Dashboard/widgets, Automator...the list goes on and on. I don't see Windows handing stuff out like that with their free service pack releases...so not much of a comparison.
4. "Fancy GUI that brainwashes the user to believe anything off of Apple.com is true, including claims the new Core duo is 3x faster than the prior G4 that Apple claimed was faster than anything Intel."
OS X = UNIX with a nice shell. Have you even ever used Aqua, Apple's GUI? It's actually pretty nice. As far as brainwashing goes, that's everywhere. Why do we buy Mustangs, Corvettes, and Ferraris? Because they look cool. They are just appliances that get us from point A to point B, but it's fun to have a "fancy GUI" to do it in.
As far as the speed claims, every company that manufacters and markets a product exaggerates. Aside from that, yes - believe it or not, newer chips
are faster! Also, times change. At the time, Apple's chips may have been faster than Intel's chips, but progress has occured and now they're using the faster Intel chips. Wow, mind boggling!
5. "Makes you hang out in Windows forums preaching how wonderfull the Applle is when in fact all you're doing is illustrating to others how you coulnd't handle such an idiot proof OS like XP."
So because I shared my experience with an Apple product, that makes me a preacher? Did you miss the lines where I said "Starting with 2k Windows starting becoming a good product. XP is a lot better..."? And you're calling me an idiot because I said I've used Apple products? You're starting to sound like a bona fide fanboy
XP is not idiot proof, nor is OS X. OS X is certainly more user and consumer friendly, but both are complex operating systems and are subject to error, like any other complex system. If XP was idiot proof, why do I get blue screens? Why does my computer freeze up? Why do I get popups, virii, and spyware? Why do I have to download Windows updates every two days? Why does my computer get slow after just a year of normal use? Gee, I must be an idiot because these things happen! I can't handle running Windows and so I need to go and "illustrate to others how I can't handle such an idiot-proof OS like XP!" My goodness!
Now that 99% of consumer software is available for or has equivalents in OS X, it's finally feasible for me to switch. Now with dual boot and virtualization I have even more incentive. My wife's iMac requires no maintenance - no defrags, no spyware scanning
Macs don't require power either, run off a zero point module, you don't need to pay for MS licenses when you virtualize, the hard-drives never crash, and you never have to install drivers at all because OSX compiles them upon installation. Macs are also faster than Windows when it comes to networking because OSX uses a special base 3 protocol that runs in between the OSI layers.
How did you go from "no defrags, no spyware scanning" to "Macs don't require power either, run off a zero point module" etc.? Macs require a lot less user maintenance than Windows. That doesn't mean they're invincible or magical. They are still subject to hardware problems, and even software problems. You have a serious problem of taking things out of context and out of proportion, my friend!
I would also like to point out that if Macs are so much more stable and reliable than Windows as you claim, why have I never seen one in a Server farm after working in the IT industry for over a decade? Not a one...never. I seen them doing mission critical things like converting videos and rendering over-budget Hollywood movies, but no network engineer I know, even the hardcore Windows haters, trust Apple to do anything more than edit nose hair on models.
...And to finalize, why is it every independant benchark I've seen with OSX Server shows it getting it's nads handed to it by even NT 4.0 when it comes to network applications? If OSX is so frikken amazing as you say it is, and the first prodigal son of Unix, why is it's network stack marginally more efficient than DOS? Why is it you can't passive FTP from OSX without loading thrid party software to make it work right?
Why did you go from talking about consumer applications to server/business applications? I made no mention of "network applications" for Macs. Again, you have a problem with blowing things out of proportion. The point I was trying to make with my post is that (1) Gates is a shrewd businessman and (2) OS X is a nice operating system alternative for consumers. We can't compare OS X to everything under the sun because, like everything else, it has its niche. Linux isn't exactly the most consumer-friendly operating system, but it makes a great server OS. So why not complain about that? Or a million other things?
To sum it up, Gates created Windows as a tool. Steve Jobes created consumers reliant on Apple software engineers to think for them.
Why do you say that Jobs created an environment where consumers are reliant on software engineers to think for them? Because he thought that maybe people should be able to focus on what they want to do with their computer rather than the computer itself? There's a novel idea!
Facebook
Twitter