Slashdot Log In
Review of 'MacHeads' Documentary
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jan 05, 2009 08:59 AM
from the just-in-time-for-macworld-zomg-zomg dept.
from the just-in-time-for-macworld-zomg-zomg dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Just prior to its premiere at MacWorld later this week, CNet has a review of MacHeads, the new documentary film covering the obsessive world of Apple fanboyism. MacHeads features commentary from original Apple employees, the self-confessed Apple-obsessed and girls who claim they'll never sleep with Windows users. Summed up by CNet: 'MacHeads is a superb film that will give Apple haters a few cheap laughs, and Apple fans a few cheap thrills. But it'll entertain both equally, while educating everybody else.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Fanboy-focused 'MacHeads' documentary reviewed by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I prefer to stick to more healthy obsessions (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I prefer to stick to more healthy obsessions (Score:5, Funny)
Yea but they just coppied Babylon 5.
Think about it...
Based on a space station.
The head honcho of the station had a rank of commander then later on there was a captain.
Head Honcho(s) had some deep destiny that they needed to follow controlled by an alien race with supernatural powers who talked in confusing language that only became clear once the events have happened.
A secondary race of aliens who somehow have a more detailed knowledge of these super aliens.
War against a superior race who at first is considered indestructible and later on in the series killing them becomes a piece of cake.
Command of a ship that is brand new. Much smaller then the other ships and cannot be recognized as one of the good guys. But chalk full of shooting goodness. Now with some alien technology that makes it that much more devastating.
It is only the best Trek series because they stole everything from Babylon 5.
Parent
Re:I prefer to stick to more healthy obsessions (Score:5, Interesting)
The ethnocentrism and blind idealism of the Federation is brought into view. Though supposedly welcoming and accepting, it views races like the Ferengi with distrust and even disdain.
Religion is treated more directly and more honestly than in most television shows, period. Almost unimportant (except as an occasional plot device) in the other Treks, now questions of personal religious conviction are addressed. And religious extremism and religiously motivated violence as a result have to be dealt with.
The question of the legitimate limit of violence when under occupation is brought up--and we don't get much of an answer at all.
Potential consequences of genetic enhancement are not only considered, but humanized in the figure of an important character.
In general, DS9 manages to help us get a grip on contemporary problems and worries by putting them at a distance from us (and, to be fair, by oversimplifying and exaggerating them). In doing so, it becomes much more interesting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Though supposedly welcoming and accepting, it views races like the Ferengi with distrust and even disdain.
And with good reason!! Those ugly swindling bastards would sell their own mothers if it would turn a profit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I prefer to stick to more healthy obsessions (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought DS9 was the most consistent of the new Trek series, especially past season 1.
IMO, TNG had a much bigger "amazing episode followed by an unwatchable POS that doesn't even seem like the same show" problem. I think that DS9 generated fewer 5-out-of-5 excellent individual episodes, but also fewer 1-out-of-5ers. Still a few 5s, though, and loads of 4s.
The multi-episode and season-long story arcs are why it's my favorite.
Parent
Re:I prefer to stick to more healthy obsessions (Score:4, Interesting)
DS9 has some great episodes like In the Pale Moonlight [wikipedia.org] and some of the Ferengi-centered ones provided great comedy relief dispersed throughout the more serious story arc. however, there was also a ton of completely unwatchable crap IMO--particularly the episodes about Sisko's gradual conversion to Bajoran religion and were basically preaching religious faith.
i mean, Gene Roddenberry was a staunch atheist, and he makes this pretty clear throughout TNG. so even though there were TNG episodes that touched on the issue of religion, it was understood that religiosity is not a trait of an enlightened society, nor would it be conducive of the scientific advances necessary for interstellar travel. yet Rick Berman bases the entire DS9 series around the Bajoran race, a backward theocracy steeped in superstition and religious cliches, that somehow managed to develop FTL propulsion technology in a time when their society still obeyed a caste system.
this no doubt gave DS9 a broader appeal to the general population, but it really goes against the original spirit of Star Trek. for me part of the appeal of Star Trek was Roddenberry's use of science fiction to explore alternative lifestyles, social dynamics, and political systems. he used Star Trek to ponder what life would be like without familiar social institutions like religion, nation-states, or capitalism. being set in the future, Roddenberry tried to extrapolate and project the social/cultural/political progress humanity might make over several centuries time.
in contrast, Bajoran society is just an idealized version of past & existing theocracies. there's a state religion, but somehow religious conflict & intolerance aren't an issue, because everyone follows the same religion. and instead of solving problems on one's own using rational thought and human(oid) ingenuity, the series often advocates prayer and having faith in the supernatural to solve your problems for you. i think one season finale even ends with a deus ex machina through intervention by the wormhole aliens (the prophets). not to mention, TOS and TNG were both primarily about discovery/exploration and interaction with alien species, whereas much of DS9 is centered around gun fights and space battles.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for solving problems by prayer and faith, praying to a god who not only exists for a fact but who also has a track record of hel
Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
They're probably ugly anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
girls who claim they'll never sleep with Windows users
They're probably ugly anyway.
Now you can blame Microsoft for nnot getting laid too...
Re: (Score:2)
Now you can blame Microsoft for not getting laid too...
Now?
Holy water? Garlic? (Score:5, Funny)
Other titles you may also enjoy:
- People who buy Nike shooes!
- Maserati: A noble car embiggens the smallest man.
"Trekkies" with a different context (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely, "MacHeads is another cheap 'find a subculture and mock it' film that will pander to Apple haters, and bore or irritate Apple fans. It will broaden the minds of neither, and pass unnoticed by everyone else."
Re:"Trekkies" with a different context (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. What I find are more anti-whatevers, than pro-whatevers. People obsessing over what other people use. Some of the causes might be legitimate (marketshare concerns or they end up doing tech support for friends/relatives) and some are petty (obsessing how other people spend their money).
For the classic in OS satire, there is "The Unix Hater's Handbook":
http://www.icce.rug.nl/edu/ugh.pdf [icce.rug.nl]
It was pretty much the poke in the eye to unix users but the anti-foreword was written by Dennis Ritchie - but was just as scathing right back:) (This was when some users came from other systems, like Lisp Machines.) It's probably still relevant today, seeing as how OS with unix foundations are the only OS with marketshare outside Windows these days.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fence Burns (Score:5, Funny)
"MacHeads is a superb film that will give Apple haters a few cheap laughs, and Apple fans a few cheap thrills. But it'll entertain both equally, while educating everybody else."
Wow, that's such a fence-sitting position that it's probably hard on their butts. It's as if they don't want to offend anyone. "While World War II was indeed a deadly conflict, it gave the Allies a few cheap laughs, and the Axis a few cheap thrills, but it'll kill both equally." I think I can use this for my upcoming performance review...
Good God, they're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this obsession. Back in the day I was a rabid (psychotic) Amiga fan/user. As I matured I realized something, IT'S JUST A COMPUTER GUYS. JUST ANOTHER TOOL. If people were this committed to, say hammers or forstner bits -- you'd think they were completely insane.
I'm also looking at you, the "yeah, but can it run LINUX" crowd. For fucks sake, people many of you are amongst the most intelligent human beings in the world, you need to be out there breeding instead of developing a goddamn zippo lighter simulator for your iPhone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another tool, eh?
Considering the fact that we wouldn't be able to do much of what we are doing now without any tools says something about how important they are. And really how much of a human are we with a stick at most?
These tools let us be human like and thus they become part of us.
Should we be obsessed? Of course not, by the virtue of the word 'obsessed', which has negative meaning.
Should we consider a computer *just* another tool? Perhaps, but we won't.
Re:Good God, they're still around? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Good God, they're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you're not considering is the fact that you yourself have aged, and therefore your opinions and perceptions have changed as well. Most people mellow out of the "raging 20s" where everything seems like a social injustice, even if it's some guy in a coffee shop using an OS that they think "sucks".
It seems to me that it's a problem of relativity. The people you seem to be referencing are very likely right around the same age you were (and I was) when we were ferocious about such things. I was an Amiga person too, and then a rabid Mac owner, then an elite NeXT user, then a smartass Linux user, but eventually I decided, just like you, that it really is just a computer and that there are far more important things to worry about and spend time dealing with.
And that's why I use OS X.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I bet it would, since really no one admits to using netBSD (though why I don't know). I chose to say OS X because 1. it's true and 2. It was funny in the context of the rest of the post and 3. it was a statement of utter irrelevancy.
You're absolutely right, it doesn't matter at all what OS *I* use. It matters what YOU use, and that's none of my business, really. Me saying "And that's why I use OS X" was certainly inviting a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the reasons that it's so handy in my line of work is that it's been certified as a Unix by the Open Group. These certifications do actually mean quite a lot, for better or worse, and they often figure deeply into these sorts of decisions.
But if it's not for you, then that's fine. Computing needs vary,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd never sleep with anyone who uses forstner bits!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I matured I realized something, IT'S JUST A COMPUTER GUYS. JUST ANOTHER TOOL.
Expect to turn 30 and realise that NOT ALL TOOLS ARE ALIKE. You'll laugh more at yourself than others for once thinking that some of them even belonged in the same conversation.
And if you had the foresight to develop some skills along the way and nurtured your intellectual curiousity, you'll insist on making your own tools by the time you're fourty, an advocating the same to people on Slashdot who are oblivious to the differenc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The iFart application is the leading application in the App Store right now. Yes, a farting application.
Re:Good God, they're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux users are normally people who have gone beyond what they were presented with and explored other possibilities (else they would be using Windows). That attitude is an indicator of intelligence. Linux also requires having self-educated oneself on how to manage the system for most of us. That attitude is also an indicator of intelligence. So it's reasonable to guess that statistically, Linux users may be from the intelligent segments of society. But it's only a small part of the larger set of intelligent people. Using Linux might be a clue that someone is smart, but using Windows is not a sign that someone is not.
Parent
Just take screenshots of Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Just screenshot all the Apple articles on Slashdot, and you'll see fanboyism and corporate pimping at its finest.
Fanboys (Score:5, Informative)
Overall I'm still enjoying my laptop, but I'm astounded that so many people basically lied to me with claims of how perfectly stable and wonderful macs are. I find it very difficult to believe that I'm the only one who has to force-quit applications or deal with inexplicable slowdowns. Surely all these fanboys are having the same sorts of problems. So why can't they just admit it? Why do they have to insist that everything is perfect?
Re:Fanboys (Score:5, Informative)
Er... if you're able to force-quit applications, then the operating system hasn't locked up. The operating system is working fine, and the program in question has locked up. Even Apple can't save you from poorly written applications. (although your complaint is perfectly valid if the apps you're seeing lock up were written by Apple)
Parent
Re:Fanboys (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Fanboys (Score:5, Interesting)
Im convinced that most people who talk about OSX being superior are windows users who have built up some kind of weirdo OSX fetish fantasy. At my old job I supported several OSX machines and they were as much trouble as anything else. I loved sitting there watching the spinning rainbow do its thing for no reason and trying to navigate to the command line to run top while it was running so slow. There really should be a hotkey to top or a GUI-based task manager equivalent.
Apple does a good job of forcing a lot of features into its OS but that usually translates into a slow experience, especially coming from XP on an modern machine.
As far as the lying goes, well, exaggeration is human nature. Its really your job to filter out the BS. This doesnt just apply to computers, but to everything in life.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well there's three reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
1) People who have crap hardware. A number of people I know who got a Mac and find it to be much better find that mostly because they had a really bad PC. It was a cheapie and slow right when it came out, never mind the 5+ years later when this is. Also means they were running a rather outdated OS. So it isn't a surprise that a massive hardware + software upgrade gives a much better experience.
2) People who have an extremely broken system. Their system is full of crapware and breaks basically all the time. Software doesn't install, etc. They are finding it a major improvement because it was effectively a wipe/reinstall.
However by far the most common
3) They are lying to themselves. Seen this time and time again. They want/need to believe that this change is 100% for the better, so they tell themselves there are no problems. My best anecdote for this is from when I was in university, back before OS-X. I was in a friend's dorm room and his roommate and I were discussing computers. He had a Mac. He was telling me that the thing he liked was that "Macs never crash." As he was talking and noodling around, his system bombed. You know, the old bomb error. He clicked the restart and continued on. I interrupted him saying "Wait, right there! Your system crashed!" He then argued that no, it wasn't a crash like Windows does and so on. He was just lying to himself. He'd convinced himself that his system just didn't have problems like Windows did.
So that's the biggest reason they won't admit it: They really don't acknowledge that they are having problems. They lie to themselves, which then leads them to mislead you.
The truth of the matter is no consumer computer is perfect, and none likely ever will be. No matter what your OS, when you have an environment as complex and uncontrolled as one where people can install whatever they like, problems WILL happen. Certainly some OSes will have less problems, but anyone who tells you there's no problems is full of it.
Parent
Re:Well there's three reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of OSS zealots who sometimes spend 5 days to make something simple work at Linux (sometimes that happens, even if its the person's fault) are also that way. In fact, most of them use "smart people" distributions like Slackware because "they never break" and "allow me to be in full control of my machine". Yet, when something breaks they realise (but don't admit) that they do not have full control over it, that their precious "superior choice" also has issues.
It's the same thing: they're lying, and with a touch of elitism into it. Their "thing" is not about making a good choice about computing or executing tasks faster of cheaper. It's about belonging to groups (and, on an advanced point, being part of the group's institutional machine) and feeling good. It's just radical enviro-activism.
After all, they allowed themselves to define their own personality based on those choices. That's how weak they are right now. They're not in control anymore: denying the tool/group/choice would mean denying their own personality.
Parent
Fans and haters (Score:5, Funny)
I like this quote. It basically says that if you're not a fan and not a hater, it's because you're not educated properly!
I only sleep with Windows users (Score:5, Funny)
They're used to lousy performance.
No mater how bad the sex is, I just promise that next time it's going to be better than ever and they believe me.
If I "crash" while they're trying to, y'know, get things done, it's no big deal.
They're used to getting boned in the ass.
Preferences of a Windows guy... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
http://xkcd.com/196/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
They do too!
Well, I've heard rumors...
I'm pretty sure...
I can totally prove my point utilizing a clever cartoon and my powers of snarky wit! I just need to find a link...
click...
click...
clickity clack click...
Drat!
Oh well, at least I still have my pron.
Parent
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
ps- Speaking of not getting laid, anyone know a hot linux-obsessed lesbian?
Yes, and she's looking for another one.
Parent
Wrong-O, Big Time (Score:3, Funny)
The os-obsessed person cited in the article as limiting her sex partner options was Violet Blue. Your comment that "the odds of *ever* getting laid are not particularly good for os-obsessed humans" is, in her case, so wrong it's beyond funny.
Violet Blue fans feel free to chime in here.
Re:Wrong-O, Big Time (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ps- Speaking of not getting laid, anyone know a hot linux-obsessed lesbian?
*raises hand*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm...let's do some quick back-of-the envelope calculation. Six billion people in the world, three billion women. Maybe 10% are "hot" (as opposed to cute, pretty, whatever, which would be a lower standard). That's 600M hot women. Say 5% are truly lesbian (as opposed to bi, bi-curious, etc), so 6M hot lesbians in the whole world. Let's say 50% use computers (I'm not sure about this number), and 1% of those use Linux.
There should be about 30,000 hot Linux-using lesbians in the world.
Your data is likely skewed in several areas. For one, of those 3 billion women, a significant portion of them are going to be either minors, or the elderly. For the "sex era" you're probably looking at the 18-45 age bracket. You can probably reduce your 3 billion by at least 40% there.
Your 5% number for pure lesbians is also likely a tad high. A wiki article on homosexuality cites a poll taken of registered votes where 4% identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. So 1% less off the bat, but you also hav
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
You're assuming all of those qualities are independent. I don't think that's the case. I'd be willing to bet that a linux using female is more likely than average to be a lesbian. That's just my personal bias, but it seems likely that a female who enjoys one stereotypical male behavior (using linux) is probably more predisposed to enjoy another stereotypical male behavior (screwing chicks). I'd also predict that lesbians are less likely to be hot than average, simply because a significant proportion of them are butch.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on what you mean by "apple hater".
For instance, I won't buy any product by Microsoft, Apple, Sony or Creative.
In my view, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, they just lack the marketshare to pull off the truly nasty stuff, so I'm not going to give them any.
As far as "hating" them, not really. I don't spend the day trolling Apple forums and websites, or anything of the sort.
But even corporate behavior aside, the Apple fanboys are a turnoff. I want to feel like I'm making a good purchase, not buying a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You kinda proved my point there. Most people don't like spending a bunch of time customizing just to get it behave in a sane fashion. Power users frequently do. Personally my family is more important than spending "a ton of time customizing" just to get the damned thing to behave in a sane fashion. If it is "just a fucking computer" why did you bother to spend "a ton of time" customizing it? Clearly it is more than "just a fucking computer" to you if you a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You kinda proved my point there."
No I didn't, your "point" was that "PC users don't understand what it is like to have a computer that is actually nice to use."
I HAVE a computer that is nice to use. How it got there is irrelevant to your point, you're just wrong.
" Clearly it is more than "just a fucking computer" to you if you are willing to spend "a ton of time" customizing it."
No. These two points have nothing to do with each other, it can be both "just a fucking computer" and be customizable to my tas
Re:Please shut up (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently switched back to Windows from OS X. I originally switched from Windows to OS X for much of the reasons you speak of. I had a rather nasty series of hardware issues (New graphics cards drivers did nasty things, and combined with a new HDD needed a new PSU, new PSU fried mobo),and software problems, so when the computer made its freindly "snap" noise, and the ozone filled the air, I decided "screw it" and bought a G4 PowerMac.
OS X was sexy, which is an odd thing to call a mere OS. It was VERY user friendly, and actually somewhat fun to use. With about half the specs of my old top-of-the-line PC, it still ran remarkably fast. With the new iPod that came with it, I was in computer heaven. I never had to work for my computer, as I did with Linux and Windows and the general PC (for lack of a better term) hardware. And it has Adium and Quicksilver, which are probably two of the best designed chucks of code that ever existed.
Finally its HDD died, and I sold it off for about 70% of its original value, even while being broken. (very odd how much Mac people buy crap for).
So I got an Intel MacBook. With around twice the raw numbers of hardware, it ran a bit slower than the G4. It chugged. It didn't like multi-tasking, even when I fed it RAM like candy. Photoshop ran like molasses on the surface of Pluto, which is nice for something I actually shelled out a small countries fortune for. Then OS X updated, and no app developer would ever support my previous (only 1.5 year old) version. No more updates for me, unless I shelled out $100. I realized then that OS X is a subscription, not a release. Each version they make minor (superfluous) tweaks to make sure that nothing developed for the NEW version is backwards compatible with the old version. If you want new toys, you MUST pay Apple, every damn year. Like is MS charged for service packs, and released one a year. Named OS X version are NOT new OSs, they are just boring point releases that cost $100 apiece. (like the latest one, wow $100 for versioning and virtual desktops! Thinks that *nix has had for years, for free)
Then I bought a crappy middle-of-the-road HP laptop that was on a wicked Xmas sale. It was running Vista, which at first I wanted to abolish, but later learned to tolerate (with 4GB of RAM), and later still to actually like a bit (with 6GB of RAM and SP1). The HP had the same exact hardware as the Mac, but seemed faster. I relearned the joy of messing around inside the OS, streamlining it. Making it appear like MY home, and not the Model Home look that Apple likes (its pretty, but generally impersonal).
The Intel Integrated Video sucked. So this year I bought and tweaked a middle-of-the-road Dell, throwing in RAM, a decent graphics card, a huge monitor.
Long story short, it depends on what you want. No OS is superior. They all fit a certain type of user. I giggle at people who think their OS is perfect. I tell my parents to buy Macs, my friends to stick with Vista, while telling a very small percentage of them about various *nix releases. Too each his own, based on style and needs.
Vista fits my middle ground between desire to tweak things, and desire to have things work smoothly. Some people want their computer to be a toaster, let them have Macs. Some people want to treat them like muscle-car projects, let them run *nix.
Just bring Quicksilver and Adium to Windows, please.
Parent