Review of 'MacHeads' Documentary 277
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.'"
Re:Educating? (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 an entry into a religious cult. I'm also completely uninterested in praises of Steve Jobs, Apple's UI design and such things. Though the same goes for all other companies.
Re:I prefer to stick to more healthy obsessions (Score:1, Interesting)
>>>Think about it...
Also the creator of Babylon 5 *gave* the series Bible plus multiple scripts to Paramount in 1991. He made it extremely easy for Paramount to copy B5's design, characterizations, and plot.
No matter.
Both DS9 and B5 rank as my #1 favorite series. B5 has a slight edge with its "novel for tv" presentation, but DS9 has better standalone short stories (like "The Visitor"). I love them both.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Good God, they're still around? (Score:3, Interesting)
The iFart application is the leading application in the App Store right now. Yes, a farting application.
Re:Educating? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
ps- Speaking of not getting laid, anyone know a hot linux-obsessed lesbian?
*raises hand*
Re:Good God, they're still around? (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, as do therefore computational environments, including hardware, software, and operating system. If I want to play some sort of beautiful, cutting edge FPS, I know that for an excellent experience I'll find myself building a 10,000 dollar gaming machine with four video cards running Vista. If I want my machine to never, ever crash while it's running Postfix and a DNS server, I'll use Open or NetBSD.
If I want my Oracle installation to be able to chomp into 6 terabyte databases with as little latency as possible, I'll run them on Solaris with a heavily tweaked kernel.
And if I want a good balance between shallow ramping, ease of use, compliance to common standards and a certification that allows my customers to breathe easy (for whatever reason), then I'll use OS X.
I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with that.
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.