whats wrong with Mac's?

[Teuton]

I ran into the same problem with my Amiga years ago. I hated drooling over that cool game or CAD software available on the Windows platform that may or may not be ported to my Amiga platform. Yeah the Mac may eventually get a game ported over but by then my buddies have moved on.

Age of Kings.....really?.....with the Conquerors add on?

 

[thirdlegstump]

Software is NOT limited. We have every software we need including anything requiring cross-platform compatibility and if necessary, we can use VPC to run ANY PC software and get on any PC network so your point is moot Teuton.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Teuton
OK...the point is that there is alot more software that you can't play or use on a Mac. So you have 2 out of every 20 titles. Is Halflife 2 coming next month on the Mac? What about Halo 2?

Like I said, I love the hardware and the OS but......software is not there for me.

I don't see Halo 2 coming for Windows any time soon, nor do I see Half Life 2 on a console...

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Teuton
OK...the point is that there is alot more software that you can't play or use on a Mac. So you have 2 out of every 20 titles. Is Halflife 2 coming next month on the Mac? What about Halo 2?

Like I said, I love the hardware and the OS but......software is not there for me.

I don't see Halo 2 coming for Windows any time soon, nor do I see Half Life 2 on a console...

Well it's inevitable that it'll be released for Windows. You know that.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Teuton
OK...the point is that there is alot more software that you can't play or use on a Mac. So you have 2 out of every 20 titles. Is Halflife 2 coming next month on the Mac? What about Halo 2?

Like I said, I love the hardware and the OS but......software is not there for me.

I don't see Halo 2 coming for Windows any time soon, nor do I see Half Life 2 on a console...

Well it's inevitable that it'll be released for Windows. You know that.

Now why would MS release their premire title for a competing platform? Halo PC was a Trojan Horse that they didn't give the least bit of thought to post-release; Gearbox had to beg them to make HaloCE in order to get decent net play.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
You still can't put all your open apps/windows on the dock, which is arguably the most important function of the taskbar. As for the mouse, the point isn't that having only one buttom is a huge disadvantage, because it's not. The point is that there is NO advantage to it, and the only reason apple still uses one buttom mice is to distinguish themselves from pcs.

Well, you can shrink the apps to the Taskbar. And of course, there is Exposé, which I think is one of the most important additions to the GUI in recent times.

As for the one button mouse, the one advantage I can see is that UI designers are forced to design around it. Consequently, it seems to me that for most (but not all) Mac programs, it's easier to navigate using just the one button than it would be using a similar program on another OS. The OS X designers tend to try to stay away from the right click, which too often gets built-up as a garbage can of extra functions. But yeah, otherwise, there isn't really an advantage to having a single mouse button. I have no problems using it though, probably partially for the reason above. When I got my first Mac I thought I'd use two-button mice, but I never do anymore.

One thing to note here is that Adobe and Apple make a lot of the software.
For things that weren't designed around Apples, check Excel, Powerpoint (may it rot in Hell), and Visio. Excel and Visio are truly useful, with intuitive interfaces, and enough context menu options to keep you happy, but nothing like Word, with too many there, and none being what you actually want 90% of the time. Using all five typical (wheelmouse) mouse buttons can be done very well--it generally is not done well, though.
My guess is that more hackers design interfaces than people who might use the product(s).

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
You still can't put all your open apps/windows on the dock, which is arguably the most important function of the taskbar. As for the mouse, the point isn't that having only one buttom is a huge disadvantage, because it's not. The point is that there is NO advantage to it, and the only reason apple still uses one buttom mice is to distinguish themselves from pcs.

Well, you can shrink the apps to the Taskbar. And of course, there is Exposé, which I think is one of the most important additions to the GUI in recent times.

As for the one button mouse, the one advantage I can see is that UI designers are forced to design around it. Consequently, it seems to me that for most (but not all) Mac programs, it's easier to navigate using just the one button than it would be using a similar program on another OS. The OS X designers tend to try to stay away from the right click, which too often gets built-up as a garbage can of extra functions. But yeah, otherwise, there isn't really an advantage to having a single mouse button. I have no problems using it though, probably partially for the reason above. When I got my first Mac I thought I'd use two-button mice, but I never do anymore.

One thing to note here is that Adobe and Apple make a lot of the software.
For things that weren't designed around Apples, check Excel, Powerpoint (may it rot in Hell), and Visio. Excel and Visio are truly useful, with intuitive interfaces, and enough context menu options to keep you happy, but nothing like Word, with too many there, and none being what you actually want 90% of the time. Using all five typical (wheelmouse) mouse buttons can be done very well--it generally is not done well, though.
My guess is that more hackers design interfaces than people who might use the product(s).

Yeah, maybe I dunno. I don't use Excel heavily, except for organizing my data, and I never use Visio. I do use PowerPoint when I'm building upon other people's .ppt files, but I don't like it much, and I don't need it's drawing features, etc. I usually use Keynote on the Mac, which has fewer features than PowerPoint, but which is easier to use and produces nicer presentations than PowerPoint. Keynote has OpenGL transitions and stuff. Actually PowerPoint 2004 on the Mac makes use of some OS X technologies and thus has some cooler functions than PowerPoint 2003 on Windows, but I still prefer Keynote. I suspect Keynote will be updated in early 2005 too, since Steve Jobs' last presentation used features that doesn't exist in the current version of Keynote.

As for hackers designing interfaces, that's probably true. Linux is the perfect example. For ease of use of apps and the OS in general, OS X > Windows >>>> Linux.

 

[Apotherix]

Yeah...the idiotic mouse is enough to turn me off. Also, I'm too used to right-clicking on everything.

 

[oldman420]

macs are pretty and shiny and colorful and stuff.
I also think the image quality on a mac is better than a PC.
I learned to compute on a mac way back in the IMac days.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Yeah...the idiotic mouse is enough to turn me off. Also, I'm too used to right-clicking on everything.

Then why dont you get a multi button mouse? You dont have to use the 1 button mouse you know. Apple supports multi button mice.

This is the most important reason - Hippies with ponytails who drive volkswagon bugs and wear berkenstocks like Macs, and that's a good enough reason not to buy one for me

This is perhaps one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. You obviously cannot prove this, and I would like to know how much you know about Mac users to make such an assumption.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
You still can't put all your open apps/windows on the dock, which is arguably the most important function of the taskbar. As for the mouse, the point isn't that having only one buttom is a huge disadvantage, because it's not. The point is that there is NO advantage to it, and the only reason apple still uses one buttom mice is to distinguish themselves from pcs.

Well, you can shrink the apps to the Taskbar. And of course, there is Exposé, which I think is one of the most important additions to the GUI in recent times.

As for the one button mouse, the one advantage I can see is that UI designers are forced to design around it. Consequently, it seems to me that for most (but not all) Mac programs, it's easier to navigate using just the one button than it would be using a similar program on another OS. The OS X designers tend to try to stay away from the right click, which too often gets built-up as a garbage can of extra functions. But yeah, otherwise, there isn't really an advantage to having a single mouse button. I have no problems using it though, probably partially for the reason above. When I got my first Mac I thought I'd use two-button mice, but I never do anymore.

One thing to note here is that Adobe and Apple make a lot of the software.
For things that weren't designed around Apples, check Excel, Powerpoint (may it rot in Hell), and Visio. Excel and Visio are truly useful, with intuitive interfaces, and enough context menu options to keep you happy, but nothing like Word, with too many there, and none being what you actually want 90% of the time. Using all five typical (wheelmouse) mouse buttons can be done very well--it generally is not done well, though.
My guess is that more hackers design interfaces than people who might use the product(s).

Yeah, maybe I dunno. I don't use Excel heavily, except for organizing my data, and I never use Visio. I do use PowerPoint when I'm building upon other people's .ppt files, but I don't like it much, and I don't need it's drawing features, etc. I usually use Keynote on the Mac, which has fewer features than PowerPoint, but which is easier to use and produces nicer presentations than PowerPoint. Keynote has OpenGL transitions and stuff. Actually PowerPoint 2004 on the Mac makes use of some OS X technologies and thus has some cooler functions than PowerPoint 2003 on Windows, but I still prefer Keynote. I suspect Keynote will be updated in early 2005 too, since Steve Jobs' last presentation used features that doesn't exist in the current version of Keynote.

As for hackers designing interfaces, that's probably true. Linux is the perfect example. For ease of use of apps and the OS in general, OS X > Windows >>>> Linux.

For doing diagrams and occasional flowhcart (occasional--it's not the best at that bit), Visio rocks. Very good help, extremely well organized.

Overall though, I wouldn't put Windows far above Linux. Check out Knoppix, Mepis, and Xandros. All Xandros needs is more market penetration in general for Linux. If you want to conform (games, misc. other apps), it won't be the greatest. Otherwise, Linux is there. There are many cases where it outperforms Windows. Not the least of which is TV tuners. As a gamer, I'm running Windows...but repartitioning and having an alternate Debian desktop is becoming more and more appealing. It will definitely be something I do before I'd switch to XP. I'm already using tons of free apps in Windows. Finding a desktop environment that suits me would be the most difficult part of the transisition.

 

[Subhuman25]

Originally posted by: gamekid
i see that people basically make haveing a mac computer, a stupid decision, but Y? people only talk about everything but Mac's on this forum(not entirely true but just about), so what i ask you is what's wrong with Mac's?(i am not biased and do not own a mac but still am wondering y)

That's like asking "What's wrong with AOL?" OMFG

:disgust:

 

[belazeru]

Macs are cool but ill take my FX-55 system any day.

 

[Gnosis]

You Mac-lovers keep on raving that software isn't limited and that you can
use most PC-software by emulating it with "virtual PC". Well - why don't
you just get in the game and get a PC I ask?

I mean isn't that a stament - if anything - about how "behind" Mac:s are?
That you actually have to pretend it's a PC sometimes?

:laugh:

 

[imported_Lucifer]

You Mac-lovers keep on raving that software isn't limited and that you can
use most PC-software by emulating it with "virtual PC". Well - why don't
you just get in the game and get a PC I ask?

And how about you name some software that wont run on the Mac? Name some software that runs on the PC that wont run on the Mac other than "Games."

I did have Virtual PC, but got rid of it, because I had no use for it. All those PC apps I used are on the Mac, such as Photoshop, Microsoft Office, Flash MX and Dreamweaver. And if there is a certain app that is not found on the Mac, such as Microsoft Access, there is a substitute, such as FileMaker Pro.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: Gnosis
You Mac-lovers keep on raving that software isn't limited and that you can
use most PC-software by emulating it with "virtual PC". Well - why don't
you just get in the game and get a PC I ask?

I mean isn't that a stament - if anything - about how "behind" Mac:s are?
That you actually have to pretend it's a PC sometimes?

:laugh:

Because average computer users won't have to lose brain cells by worrying about viruses and spyware if they use a Mac since no one really bothers writing that stuff for it. (as with many other programs LOL) Macs are not "behind" per se, Apple just targets a different market, a niche market.

By the way, I don't own a single Mac anymore simply because I am not part of that market, but I do recognize it when there's a need for it.

 

[bhanson]

Well, this topic is always a fun one. I'll add my two cents.

I don't think there is a best, but rather only what's best for you. If you switch to something different then at first you will probably not be as productive as you were before. Using this, it's very easy for people to judge a product without some bias being involved, even if it's unintentional. If you like Macs, use a Mac. If you like PCs, use a PC. As far as gaining new users go, in my opinion a lot of this has to do with market share. Personally, I think Linux is a better OS than Windows, but Windows wins (IMHO) because of the greater market share.

A lot of people just roll with what's the standard, it could be the best, but it could also not be. Standard does not equal best as many people may like to think.

As far as my background goes, I use MacOS, Windows, and Linux/Unix on quite a regular basis. I also use DVORAK..

 

[Apotherix]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Yeah...the idiotic mouse is enough to turn me off. Also, I'm too used to right-clicking on everything.

Then why dont you get a multi button mouse? You dont have to use the 1 button mouse you know. Apple supports multi button mice.

This is the most important reason - Hippies with ponytails who drive volkswagon bugs and wear berkenstocks like Macs, and that's a good enough reason not to buy one for me

This is perhaps one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. You obviously cannot prove this, and I would like to know how much you know about Mac users to make such an assumption.

I'd have to agree...Macs seem to appeal to the more homosexual in orientation...

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I'd have to agree...Macs seem to appeal to the more homosexual in orientation...

What are you agreeing to? What is the point of this post in the first place? This is irrelevant, and I would like to ask how much you know about Mac users to make idiotic assumptions like this. If you have nothing productive to post, do us all a favor and dont post in this thread anymore.

 

[baumerz]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Software is NOT limited. We have every software we need including anything requiring cross-platform compatibility and if necessary, we can use VPC to run ANY PC software and get on any PC network so your point is moot Teuton.

I heard the same thing when I had an Amiga. Software may not be limited to you but it is to me. Like I said; I love the hardware but there isn't MY preference in hardware.

Example: I just bought Star Wars Battlefront, Trackmania, and pre ordered Halflife 2 because that's what my buddies are playing online. I bought Solidworks 2004 CAD for at home.

These are my needs. If yours are fulfilled by a MAC then fine. I mean why do you people try to make others feel guilty about our choices? You commies or what ? I tend to think that your not really happy with your limited choices and so you try to convince the rest of us we don't need choices either.

Get first line software and I'll buy a MAC.

 

[baumerz]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: Gnosis
You Mac-lovers keep on raving that software isn't limited and that you can
use most PC-software by emulating it with "virtual PC". Well - why don't
you just get in the game and get a PC I ask?

I mean isn't that a stament - if anything - about how "behind" Mac:s are?
That you actually have to pretend it's a PC sometimes?

:laugh:

Because average computer users won't have to lose brain cells by worrying about viruses and spyware if they use a Mac since no one really bothers writing that stuff for it. (as with many other programs LOL) Macs are not "behind" per se, Apple just targets a different market, a niche market.

By the way, I don't own a single Mac anymore simply because I am not part of that market, but I do recognize it when there's a need for it.

My point exactly........

 

[baumerz]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

I'd have to agree...Macs seem to appeal to the more homosexual in orientation...

What are you agreeing to? What is the point of this post in the first place? This is irrelevant, and I would like to ask how much you know about Mac users to make idiotic assumptions like this. If you have nothing productive to post, do us all a favor and dont post in this thread anymore.

Ya gotta laugh.....this is obviously just a joke.......I personally think only Germans own MACS.....

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I heard the same thing when I had an Amiga. Software may not be limited to you but it is to me. Like I said; I love the hardware but there isn't MY preference in hardware.

Example: I just bought Star Wars Battlefront, Trackmania, and pre ordered Halflife 2 because that's what my buddies are playing online. I bought Solidworks 2004 CAD for at home.

These are my needs. If yours are fulfilled by a MAC then fine. I mean why do you people try to make others feel guilty about our choices? You commies or what ? I tend to think that your not really happy with your limited choices and so you try to convince the rest of us we don't need choices either.

Get first line software and I'll buy a MAC.

Ok, I see games are your needs. Then the PC is right for you. And where did you get we are trying to make you others feel guilty about your choices? And what limited choices? Games? How about you name some software that wont run on the Mac other than games, because not everyones needs is gaming. If that app wont run on the Mac, there is a substitute.

And no one here is trying to convince anyone to use a Mac. Where did you get this from? This is nonsense you threw in here.

I tend to think that your not really happy with your limited choices and so you try to convince the rest of us we don't need choices either.

You are just saying things that are on top of your head. Can you prove this?

 

[The Green Bean]

Big MAC? yummy!

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: bhanson
Well, this topic is always a fun one. I'll add my two cents.

I don't think there is a best, but rather only what's best for you. If you switch to something different then at first you will probably not be as productive as you were before. Using this, it's very easy for people to judge a product without some bias being involved, even if it's unintentional. If you like Macs, use a Mac. If you like PCs, use a PC. As far as gaining new users go, in my opinion a lot of this has to do with market share. Personally, I think Linux is a better OS than Windows, but Windows wins (IMHO) because of the greater market share.

A lot of people just roll with what's the standard, it could be the best, but it could also not be. Standard does not equal best as many people may like to think.

As far as my background goes, I use MacOS, Windows, and Linux/Unix on quite a regular basis. I also use DVORAK..

You make some interesting, and very valid points regarding this whole "debate" (read: sh!t-slinging match).

Let's say that the PC didn't gain as much of a foothold all those years ago- would we be all using G5 Macs, OsX, and occasionally poking fun at the PC users for their apparent lack of games and/or mainstream software? Of course, this isn't to say that with the playing field the way it is at the moment, that the Mac doesn't have mainstream software!

I think you're definitely right about people rolling with the standard. Using the above example, if Apple had seriously price-competitive computers and the majority of the market share, would Joe Sixpack be heading out to buy a Mac whilst being offered the "alternative" of a PC? Of course, if this had happened then we might be seeing a rise in the use of Linux as a great deal more people discover that the underlying foundations of OsX is BSD, and an alternative OS may then be offered with every Mac sold. There may well be less viruses and spyware, and the average consumer may be safer in buying a piece of software without being so concerned if it'll run on their PC, because, let's face it, how many average users know the specs of their PC?
I know that when I was working in retail, we would ask people if the requirements of the software/hardware they were buying were met by the specs of their PC, and a great deal of them had absolutely no idea. This isn't to say, of course, that the situation would magically improve if Apple held a majority share of the market, and everything was produced primarly for Macs, but at least there wouldn't be so much diversity in the specifications of consumer's home computer. People may be able to walk into BestBuy, and state that they have a "G5 with OsX 10.3", and therefore be able to work out just what will work with it.

Let's face it, the PC architecture is fantastic for people who know what they're talking about, or people who can carry a spec sheet with them when they go shopping for new software, but it's still a fantastic mess. How many average users know the difference between RAM and hard disk space, or if they have a DirectX-9 compatible graphics card? I know most don't.

If the Mac wasn't so expensive, and the state of the software market was reversed (including Apple having the lion's share of the market), then I'd be using a Mac with OsX, and I think I'd be happy with that.