Originally posted by: Gnosis
Originally posted by: bluestrobe
Here's one hit for the Mac:
OSX and its limited installability. OSX only can be installed on a late rev. G3 processor or newer system with USB capability. I have a G3 550MHz Umax SuperMac that originally shipped with a 200 MHz card and 512mb ram. However due to the limitations of OSX I can never install this on my system. I could do it with a hack and OS 9.2.2 but you know what? I need a hack for OS 9.2.2 since that won't install due to its limited installability either! OS9.1 is currently loaded. So in a lateral comparison, it?s like I have Win98 but I can't install Win98SE because of my hardware and what Macintosh thinks I should have installed! Sorry guys but I could load Win XP on a 200MHz Pentium MMX if I wanted to. Macintosh enjoys their niche because controlling hardware/software as they do; they can force users to upgrade only based on the OS version. If you don't see it this way then you are blinded by the glow on your G5 case. It should always be the choice of the user on what they want installed and if it runs slow and sluggish, their fault. I built up my G3 Mac clone to use OSX and learned that I couldn't use it because I wasn't up to par with the current Mac "trend" of what they want me to have, although my setup could easily have run OSX.
People say Microsoft is bad compared to Macintosh, but who forces their users to buy their hardware so they can use the latest software? Win XP runs fine on my 233 MHz P2 but I can't go above OS 9.1 on my 550 MHz G3.
When debating a computing platform, look at the past/current/future rather than the accomplishments of the last 2 years for a certain platform and then use it to bash the entire life of another one.
As for most PC users not knowing their hardware configurations, tell me what the gap is on your spark plugs in your car? Using this as an argument why Macs are better is saying we should go back to the Communist days where we all have one type of car and computer because we are too lazy to find out the specifics of it.
Computer (PC) companies don't have to rely on looks to sell a product such as Macintosh does. Dell, HP/Compaq, and Gateway have been riding the same general design lines for the past couple of years with some improvements. They don't sell their systems based on the shock value it has but because its functionability. Most Macintosh ad campaigns have been based on looks, not functionability (clam shell, graphical designs embedded into the case, giant G3 or G4 in the side of the case). A computer could look like crap but if its fast, then that?s all that matters.
OK - this may be a bit late but I think that mr bluestrobe here captured very well why som
of us dislike mac:s so much. If you sum it up you get:
1. Macintosh OSX is fine.
2. Macintosh as a company are monopolistic sons of bitches who forces you to make hardware upgrades.
3. Mac:s - to a higher degree than PC:s - sell on suface over substance. Which mean they lure in innocent
first time user with their flashy advertisments and non-worldly perfomance claims.
And this is also why I dispise mac:s. They simple promise more than they deliver and I feel sorry
for those who belive in everything they claim and simply jump on the bandwagon without a
second thought. That some people after making a concious choice prefer mac I have nothing
to complain about.
The fact remains though that PC:s are in my opinion a "higher user level"-machine. Yes - that
means that Mac:s *may* be easier to use. But for X % more effort you can get so much more
out of a PC if you set it up just the way you want to. Not to mention - at a lower cost as well.
An earlier reference to communism was also very accurate. If Stalin had made a PC for the
Soviet Union it would without a doubt have been a Mac. Probably uglier and blood-red but
never the less - a mac. A fixed concept with a minimum of user freedom - "thisss isss what
whe suppla and yo whill use ith"...