Re: War on the Wintrolls

On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:47:28 +0000, George Graves wrote:

In article <pan.2006.05.13.02.37.16.629286@xxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <non@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:47:37 -0700, Donald L McDaniel wrote:

On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:00:32 -0700, George Graves wrote
(in article <gmgraves-AF3F1A.15003211052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


My brother recently purchased a new 20" Intel iMac, and gave me his 17"
Intel
iMac.

I thought the price was very reasonable. We both got two machines in one
--
a Mac (With OS 10.4.4) and a Windows machine. Now we can both maximize all
our Windows software as well as our Apple software.

Sort of. Parallels would be well worth the money.


He paid about $1750 (after discount), plus two gigs of extra memory (not
from
Apple, however). So all in all, he paid about $1950. His machine arrived
within 5 days of ordering it.

I don't think I'd be dropping more than $1500 for something as powerful as
an Intel iMac with 2GB of RAM, even considering the 20" display. And that
would be at the high end.


Needless to say, we are both happy campers today.

Please, Wintel users, stop believing all the FUD about Macs. I used to
believe it, and coming to realize that that is just what it is: "Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt".

Don't worry--you'll get tired of it again in 2-3 years. OS X has some very
fundamental problems, in both the UI and in the underlying technology.

Such as?

Trying to meld the Nextstep UI with the Mac OS UI, for one. Causes quite
a few UI inconsistencies, that. OS X's interface is actually rather
schizophrenic compared to something like GNOME--it takes random concepts
from Nextstep (like, say, the dock) and marries them to seemingly random
concepts from Mac OS (like, say, the Mac OS style menu bar). With the
examples cited above, you end up having Mac OS's document-oriented menuing
system combined with Nextstep's atrocious window management. Sure, Apple
put together a kludge to alleviate the immediate symptom (Expose)--but a
more elegant (and intuitive) solution would have been to simply fix the
underlying UI inconsistency that causes the problem in the first place.

Don't even get me started on the stupidity of Apple's decision to use XNU
for OS X's kernel. They would have been much, much better off using a real
BSD kernel.


Users just don't realize it for awhile. Apple's philosophy regarding
software design and pricing isn't exactly endearing either.

Well, that's a personal matter, isn't it? I mean, if one takes the
attitude (as I do) that Macs cost what Macs cost, and don't pay too much
attention to it, then Apple's pricing doesn't mean too much.

If you don't care about pricing, the pricing doesn't matter? How profound.
I think I now understand why Apple has 3% of the desktop PC market.


I switched to
Mac. Then figured out it was a waste of money and switched to Linux.

Interesting. I tried Linux and figured out that its a waste of my TIME:

1) Steep learning curve

Less steep than OS X, really. If I handed someone a pre-installed Ubuntu
or SuSE box, I'd lay good money on a new user figuring out how to work
with it before they would OS X on a new Mac.

2) Real "geeky" UI

How so?

3) Very little results - I.E. essentially no major software, and Linux
equivalents are feature poor

Most of the people I hear complaining about OSS software make the claim
that the UIs are bad, not that the applications are lacking features. Can
you cite some examples (maybe four or five major Linux applications that
are lacking major features compared to their Windows or OS X equivalents)?

, slow to get problems corrected,

Uhh, what world are you living in? Even wintrolls hesitate to say that OSS
software (on the whole) has a slow release cycle.

and suffer
from the well known "too many chefs in the soup" syndrome.

Can you support this claim? OSS has a different development model, yes.
GNU/Linux also tends to be a fairly chaotic platform, as a whole. But
there are a lot of advantages to going in every direction at once.


Not cutting it down, mind you, just didn't like it.

Just like how I think OS X is, at best, a mediocre operating system.
Certainly not worth paying Apple's premium for it.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: War on the Wintrolls
    ... My brother recently purchased a new 20" Intel iMac, and gave me his 17" Intel ... a Mac and a Windows machine. ... our Windows software as well as our Apple software. ... Apple, however). ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
    ... Even if you don't like Windows, it's nonsense to claim it does nothing ... Using Windows on a Mac is "perverse?" ... have at Apple, to have come up with BootCamp? ... Then he bought an Intel iMac 17" when they came out. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT Re: Moving toward Intel iMac ...
    ... >> the Mac mini...it's an inexpensive little screamer of a machine that might ... >> you won't get the Intel experience with it. ... Sure, Apple will probably do a good job, but I'm sure there will ... configured a fully loaded Intel iMac on the Apple site and will take ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Did Apple Change The iCal File Format From Tiger To Snow Leopard?
    ... My father uses an Intel iMac which was ... VNC daily while he simultaneously uses his Mac in his account. ... launch iCal on my G4 Mac and verify that all of my daily activity was ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: War on the Wintrolls
    ... My brother recently purchased a new 20" Intel iMac, ... a Mac and a Windows machine. ... our Windows software as well as our Apple software. ... best way to purchase a computer, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)