Why I Hate Apple

Shadylookin said:
nah if you go cheap you can get a mac book for 1099 or an iMac for 1199:lol:

of course you can get the same parts in a normal laptop for 500 dollars less with windows, but then it won't look as pretty:lol:
Click to expand...

Or you can spend $1099 on a notebook pc that doesn't have integrated graphics.
 
Actually you can get a notebook with a dedicated gfx card for even less than that.
 
What about this PC configuration:
Core 2 duo 2.0ghz
1GB of RAM
Intel' integrated graphics from 3 yrs ago
integrated audio
no keyboard, no mouse
no monitor
comes with OS

..would you pay $800 for it?

You would if you want to buy mac mini!
 
Not in a million years, that configs a load of ass... you can do waaaaay better for $800 PC
 
For a bit more than that you can get a 2ghz C2D, 3 gb RAM and an 8600M GTw/256mb dedicated VRAM. And thats in a laptop! (plus a nice 1680x1050 display resolution). With that kind of offering, why anyone would want to buy an apple computer is beyond me. Sure it looks pretty, but heck, with the money you can save with a PC you can hire someone to make you an amazing looking case and install a linux distro that looks just as pretty on the software side.
 
well other problem is all that crap that comes with most laptops/desktops, in a form of garbage pre installed software and Vista..
 
Vista (with Aero) is cool for desktops, but bad for laptops... and that is out of topic.

The fact that end users are not liking it too much speaks for itself.
 
They don't like it because it is new (and therefore different). People reacted the same way to things like the Start button; the average "end user" simply isn't that quick to adapt to a new interface.
 
Sorry for the derail, but MS pledged to provide support for XP until 2014 today. That should say something for Vista. namely: its just not worth it.
/derail
 
stickciv said:
Sorry for the derail, but MS pledged to provide support for XP until 2014 today. That should say something for Vista. namely: its just not worth it.
/derail
Click to expand...
Windows 2000 is supported until 2010. Microsoft always offers support for a long time. Also, the underserved bad rap Vista got and continues to get deters businesses from switching for no good reason.
 
Windows 2000 was a business OS though. Windows business OS's are always supported for a long time. Home OS's on the other hand last a bit less than that.

What deters businesses is that to switch to Vista, a lot will have to upgrade their computers. Why do that when the current thing is working? And if the bad rap was undeserved, it wouldn't be there.
 
stickciv said:
Windows 2000 was a business OS though. Windows business OS's are always supported for a long time. Home OS's on the other hand last a bit less than that.
Click to expand...
XP is also a business OS. After ME and 2000 Microsoft merged their business and home OSs. And XP is still standard on crap PCs like the eeePC.

What deters businesses is that to switch to Vista, a lot will have to upgrade their computers. Why do that when the current thing is working? And if the bad rap was undeserved, it wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...
I mean the whole XP downgrade thing. It might have made sense when Vista had driver issues, but now there is no reason to stay away from Vista.
 
Comraddict said:
Vista (with Aero) is cool for desktops, but bad for laptops... and that is out of topic.

The fact that end users are not liking it too much speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Only for very low-end/slow laptops.

And the majority of end users who've tried Vista are liking it.

stickciv said:
Sorry for the derail, but MS pledged to provide support for XP until 2014 today. That should say something for Vista. namely: its just not worth it.
/derail
Click to expand...

That's not a new announcement. Starting from launch in 2001, mainstream support for XP was scheduled to last for either 5 years, or 2 years after the release of the successor product. (Whichever is longer). Vista was released in 2007, so mainstream XP support ends in 2009.

Extended support is scheduled to last either 5 years after mainstream support is ended, or 2 years after the second successor to XP is released. (Whichever is longer, again.) 5 years after the end of mainstream support is 2014.

They use the same equation to figure out support length for all of their operating systems. Windows 98 is the only MS OS which has gotten it's support further extended.

stickciv said:
What deters businesses is that to switch to Vista, a lot will have to upgrade their computers. Why do that when the current thing is working? And if the bad rap was undeserved, it wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're going with this, businesses almost NEVER upgrade operating systems independent of systems, they have life cycles for their computers, and upgrade the OS when they replace all of their machines.
 
Comraddict said:
Vista (with Aero) is cool for desktops, but bad for laptops... and that is out of topic.
Click to expand...
Why would desktop or laptop make a difference?

I've seen it run fine, even on the old Intel integrated graphics that the Mac Mini has. On something more modern like the NVIDIA 8600 that stickciv mentions, it should be much better.

The fact that end users are not liking it too much speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Some people don't like it compared to XP - this doesn't mean they think OS X is better.
 
mdwh said:
Why would desktop or laptop make a difference?

I've seen it run fine, even on the old Intel integrated graphics that the Mac Mini has. On something more modern like the NVIDIA 8600 that stickciv mentions, it should be much better.

Some people don't like it compared to XP - this doesn't mean they think OS X is better.
Click to expand...

Because desktop has less concern for power consumption and its dissipation.

Vista with Aero = GPU is always engaged = less batter life + hotter laptop
Vista + superfetch + indexing + 20 other background things = less batter life + hotter laptop

Just look at superfetch - it loads stuff from hard drive to RAM at every startup until there's no RAM left for increased performance. If you have 2GB of RAM, you'll end up reading 1.5GB of data each time you boot up, regardless if you need it or not.
 
What deters businesses is that to switch to Vista, a lot will have to upgrade their computers. Why do that when the current thing is working? And if the bad rap was undeserved, it wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

You think this is something new? Most of the serious businesses (those with hundreds or thousands of PCs in use) I know & have worked with didn't begin to deploy XP to users until 2005-2006.
 
It's the price that keeps the rabble from buying Macs. Instead the mob buys PCs, which means less virus for Mac-users. So the high price is actually pretty important.

On a more serious note.. Gaming on Macs could be a lot better. I've no interest of installing windows and somehow only few ports seem worth it.
 
The price is not nearly worth it though. I can install a free anti-virus and keep my machine just as clean..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bob bobato
USENET Messages from the 1980s on computer tech of the next ~20 years
Replies
2
Views
3K
illram
illram
Erik Mesoy
Gates on BBC News: Vista is "more secure" (than what?)
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Maniacal
Maniacal
Back
Top Bottom