Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Why So Many Mac Fanatics? 209

Posted by pudge from the they-pay-us-off-with-amusement-parks dept.
daeley writes "NewsFactor has published an article, Cult of the Mac - Why So Many Mac Fanatics? -- looking for answers to '...what is it about the Mac that commands such loyalty? An even better question might be, what is Apple doing right?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why So Many Mac Fanatics? More

Why So Many Mac Fanatics?

Comments Filter:

  • Conspiracy theories (Score:3, Funny)

    by c0wh ( 445032 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @06:56PM (#3109346)
    When a key is pressed on an Apple keyboard, chemicals are released which make the user more open to suggestion.

    Subliminal messages hidden throughout the GUI assert that Mac OS is superior.

  • What I don't get (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @06:57PM (#3109351) Journal
    What I've never understood is why people can get so emotionally attached to companies that make CPUs or graphics cards 5% faster than the ones they made the year before. Or to the companies that make first person shooters that push 5% more pixels through that hardware.

    Enthusiasm about a company that tries to make computers qualitatively better -- that I don't have trouble understanding.
  • I say that Apple has consistently provided a really great product that is easy to use, has enough power and speed for most any task I've thrown at it, has great reliability and customer service for when something goes wrong, and continues to innovate in several ways, including hardware aesthetics, software utility and aesthetics, and hardware speed.

    And, for me, I get more work done faster and with fewer headaches using my PowerBook when compared to any other machine I've used.

    That's why I use a Mac. How about you?
  • ew worries about viruses, [because] the likelihood of getting a real virus on the Mac is pretty low

    Is it just me or is this (especially on Macs that aren't running OS X) more a function of the fact that few Mac viruses are written because the potential damage is so minimal relative to a Windows virus?


    • Is it just me or is this (especially on Macs that aren't running OS X) more a function of the fact that few Mac viruses are written because the potential damage is so minimal relative to a Windows virus?

      Yeah. So? Small market share does have its advantages.

      Hmmm... better make that "advantage," without the 's'.
    • I used to (and to a degree do) program shareware for the Windows. Our company just did a complete 180 at Christmas. We are totally pro Mac OSX. So what changed our minds. OSX comes with decent development tools and it's got a BSD base. We are all total converts. It's really scary. I know all those mac freaks always said "Macs are easy to use" but they failed to mention that they are unbelievably easy to use compared to Windows. The learning curve is nice and gentle and smooth. Windows is hell in comparison. Sure it will take a while to learn a whole new API but who cares. The machine doesn't crash. How can you not be totally passionate about Macs?

      the ramblings of a new convert

    • There could be any number of possibilities on this one, one of which might be that most of the people that program for the Mac love their Macs and wouldn't want to do anything destructive to them.
    • Very likely. But is this only because there are so many Windows-PCs, or because you can be sure so many of them are wide open to attacks?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Here's why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jchristopher ( 198929 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @07:26PM (#3109551)
    Lately, I've been experimenting with Yellow Dog Linux, a RedHat variant for PowerPC hardware. (G3, G4, Powerbook, iBook etc). After the install, I tried to get it working with my Airport Base Station, a setup that works fine for Mac OS 9, X, and various Windows clients.

    For some reason, when the Yellow Dog machine gets an IP from the base station, it doesn't automatically "know" what the DNS servers are. This information is provided to the base station, and thus it's wireless clients know about the DNS servers as well. For some reason it doesn't work, and I can talk to numeric IPs but not named hosts.

    Of course, when I did this under OS X, it worked on the first try, and has worked reliably for months. I never had to use to edit text files, read man pages, or get yelled at in IRC because I didn't know what "Pump" for DHCP was.

    The funny thing is, not only does it not work the way it should, but that you are presumed to be stupid for not knowing why!

    I've also never had to reboot my computer into command line mode because my "Xfree86 config file" went wrong.

    I just want to USE my computer, not waste hours reading Usenet and trying command after command in order to make something work that should be taken care of automatically. That's why I like Macs.

    • Re:Here's why (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darkov ( 261309 )
      Exactly. This is why I love my mac. At most times, for most things, it just works. If I want to reconfigure it, it works also. No secret knowledge required. You don't have to be a card carrying unix weenie.

      And said weenies love to mock you just becuase you're not familar with an throwback interface full of archane details, largely undocumented, convoluted and anything but intuative. More likely they should be mocked.

      • Re:Here's why (Score:3, Interesting)

        by medcalf ( 68293 )
        Exactly. This is why I love my mac. At most times, for most things, it just works. If I want to reconfigure it, it works also. No secret knowledge required. You don't have to be a card carrying unix weenie.

        And said weenies love to mock you just becuase you're not familar with an throwback interface full of archane details, largely undocumented, convoluted and anything but intuative. More likely they should be mocked.

        As a UNIX weenie, I'd like to inform you that many UNIX weenies have been Mac heads for years (in my case, since 1988). Along with the Windows people, it's some of the Linux guys - many of whom come from the PC camp, which seems to believe that if your computer isn't disassembled regularly you don't know enough about it or haven't been pushing it enough - who regularly bash Macs. I like Linux OK for low-end hardware, though I prefer AIX or *BSD when I can get it, but it's a different breed from the professional UNIX types.

        -jeff

    • I've also never had to reboot my computer into command line mode because my "Xfree86 config file" went wrong.

      Command line mode? LOL. What has happened to our beloved slashdot? ;)

  • It's simple. That's it. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Snowfox ( 34467 ) <<ten.xofwons> <ta> <xofwons>> on Monday March 04, 2002 @07:33PM (#3109586) Homepage
    1. It's simple. Menus are uncluttered and arranged intelligently. Advanced options aren't missing, they're just not mixed in with everything else. Apple pays more attention to the user interface than anyone else, and it guides its developers in doing the same. Compare Internet Explorer or Office for both Mac and Windows. By following Apple's guidelines (to a degree), Microsoft has created superior products for the Mac despite its best Windows efforts.

    2. The OS and the machines are aestheticaly pleasing. PCs tend to look dull. Macs change. They remain exciting, or at least different.

    3. More focus on programming "correctness." Apple periodically reinvents the OS interface to match current needs. Old functions are dropped when using the newer APIs. Choices are limited, or directed, depending on how you want to look at it. Programs end up being simpler and have fewer bugs as a result.

    4. Apple has always marketed and spoken to the individual, not the company. (This is huge.)

    5. Steve Jobs, brain-controlling presentation zombie.

    And Mac OS X's UNIX base is just fucking cool. This is what's finally pulling me over. I picked up an old iBook for cheap to try it out, and I'm just floored. This OS is schweet!

    • 1. It's simple. Menus are uncluttered and arranged intelligently. Advanced options aren't missing, they're just not mixed in with everything else. Apple pays more attention to the user interface than anyone else, and it guides its developers in doing the same. Compare Internet Explorer or Office for both Mac and Windows. By following Apple's guidelines (to a degree), Microsoft has created superior products for the Mac despite its best Windows efforts.

      Wrong. That's your opinion. I hate IE for Mac. I love IE for Windows.

      2. The OS and the machines are aestheticaly pleasing. PCs tend to look dull. Macs change. They remain exciting, or at least different.

      My computer is a tool, not a piece of furniture. If i want something pretty, i'll buy a vase. If i need to get a report done or do some graphic layout, I want something that does the fucking job.

      3. More focus on programming "correctness." Apple periodically reinvents the OS interface to match current needs. Old functions are dropped when using the newer APIs. Choices are limited, or directed, depending on how you want to look at it. Programs end up being simpler and have fewer bugs as a result.

      When I started using Macs, it went like this. "Well, i can just download this. No, i need those extensions. Well, i'll just download those. But should I get the 68k library or the PPC library? Oh wait, it says that this text editor isn't compatible with my 5200's SCSI bus when it's not actively terminated. Oh well, i'll just use this other one. Hrm, a bit slow...Oops. It just crashed. Seventeen times. And thanks to Apple's innovative Soft Power, i have to UNPLUG MY FUCKING COMPUTER to turn it off and on again."

      And Mac OS X's UNIX base is just fucking cool. This is what's finally pulling me over. I picked up an old iBook for cheap to try it out, and I'm just floored. This OS is schweet!

      "Dude, i've got an idea. Let's get a Free Software core, and put our proprietary garbage on top of it. That way, we'll have tons of *nix geeks worshiping us as 'innovators' and fixing our bugs day in and day out, giving us thousands of man-hours of free development and advancement for our OS, while we reap all the profits and get all the blowjobs!"

      • Re:It's simple. That's it. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by foobar104 ( 206452 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @09:28PM (#3110144) Journal
        But should I get the 68k library or the PPC library?

        Criticize all you want. The transition from 68K to PowerPC wasn't without bumps. But you know what? It worked. I had one of the first Power Mac 8100s on my desk at work, and all of my applications worked perfectly. Sure, running 68K apps was a little slow, but that problem went away as the big names (Photoshop, QuarkXPress, and so on) came out in PowerPC versions.

        Apple was able to pull off the PowerPC transition. The fact that they did it at all was pretty amazing.

        Plus which, don't forget the Fat Binary: a single executable that contains both 68K and PowerPC object code. Runs in native mode on either architecture. Great idea, just brilliant. That was an Apple thing.

        Oh wait, it says that this text editor isn't compatible with my 5200's SCSI bus when it's not actively terminated.

        Oh, wait. I just realized that you're one of those chatbots, aren't you? This sentence was clearly strung together from words and phrases pulled at random out of a dictionary.

        Oh, well.
        • It was a tad bit of hyperbole. But ya know what? My network card in my 5200 does have a conflict with the SCSI bus when I don't slap a 25 pin terminator on the back of the machine. It's a documented problem with it.

          and what "Transition" are you speaking of? I'm tired of them moving to another, barely compatible platform, including an emulator for the old OS, and calling it "compatible". That's just my opinion. I can STILL RUN an 8086-compiled program on my Athlon 1.2.

          And ya know what? I've got three Macs in my workshop(my PPC 5200, my PPC 8100 and my Quadra 700/800 hybrid with a pile of external SCSI gear). I think they're great and use them all the time. But i'm not above saying that they've got some serious problems on both the hardware and software ends.

          • Re:It's simple. That's it. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by foobar104 ( 206452 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:22PM (#3110507) Journal
            and what "Transition" are you speaking of? I'm tired of them moving to another, barely compatible platform, including an emulator for the old OS, and calling it "compatible"

            Oh, be fair. You had your 68K Mac, and then you had your PowerPC Mac, which would run 68K code in emulation. That's it. We've been using PowerPCs for, what, about 10 years now? I think one major architecture change in 18 years is just fine.
            • I think he was also referring to the OS9 > OSX changeover

              Switching architectures and including an emulator and all that.

              • I think he was also referring to the OS9 > OSX changeover. Switching architectures and including an emulator and all that.

                But there are no architectural changes and no emulation involved in running OS 9 apps under OS X. If your app is written to the Carbon API, it just runs. If it isn't, then it runs inside a Classic VM, but that's not emulated. Inside the VM, code executes natively. Sometimes non-Carbon apps, particularly I/O or network bound apps, even run faster under the Classic VM than they do under OS 9!
                • I guess that would depending on your definition of emulator.

                  (what does.. say.. VMWare classify as?)
                  • I guess that would depending on your definition of emulator. (what does.. say.. VMWare classify as?)

                    By my definition, emulated code is code that is translated at run-time from one ABI to another. Kind of like interpreted code, but binary-to-binary instead of source-to-binary.

                    The OS X Classic environment provides an interface layer that intercepts system calls from the Classic application and makes that application think it's running on a cooperative-multitasking, shared-memory machine. But there's no translation from one ABI to another going on.

                    So no, there's no emulation in Mac OS X TruBlueEnvironment.
          • I can STILL RUN an 8086-compiled program on my Athlon 1.2.

            I can still run software initially intended for a Mac Plus on my OS X G4. What's your point?

            Just because it's a compatibility environment doesn't mean it has to go away. I suppose that's where Apple has one-upped MS. They use a compatibility layer, bu tit's on top of the new fast code. MS takes the opposite tack - graftign new functionality over the old environenment.

            BTW, there's a darn good chance you can't run that old DOS app under XP if it's sufficiently old. The DOS compatibility environment from NT is not fully compatible, so the days of claiming all DOS software works properly under current systems are numbered.

            (Note I don't want to imply all ancient Mac software runs under OS X, it doesn't. Poorly written programs often depended on undocuemnted system calls or specific hardware to function properly.)
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Actually, that was a NeXT thing. NeXT had fat binaries for 68K and x86 right around the time of NeXTSTEP 3.0.

            Really? Okay, I stand corrected. But no matter who actually deserves the credit for it, it was still a good idea that made the 68K-PPC transition easier than it might have otherwise been.
      • ... while we reap all the profits and get all the blowjobs!

        Please Complete These Steps

        1. Take Swordfish out of the VCR and lay it on the ground.
        2. Step on it.
        3. Jump up and down while repeating to yourself "Movies are not real, movies are not real."

        There you go. Feel better? Not my fault if you find you are no longer motivated to become a hacker.

        • Clever, aren't you.

          Then again, the successful troll's technique is often to take one small statement, often the least important one, and run with it.

          Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.
      • To quote mac_vs_pc [mac.com]:

        Oh yes, one more thing. It's interesting to hear that many of the people promoting PCs say something like "The computer is just a tool." Well, there certainly is some truth to that. But let's say that I'm constructing a backyard deck and need to put in several hundred screws -- so I buy a battery operated screwdriver.

        Am I better off with: a) a tool that requires me to read twenty pages of assembly and operating directions and periodically stops working if I don't follow every instruction just right, or b) a tool that I snap together and start working with immediately (no classes required!), and which performs flawlessly throughout the job?

        So for people who are insightful enough to make the "tool" observation, it would seem like they would then also grasp the idea that if there are TWO possible tools for a job, then USE THE BEST ONE. A Mac is very powerful, yet MUCH easier to use -- which makes users more productive. The Mac is simply the superior tool: the Swiss Army Knife of computers.

        /kharmawhore
        • Am I better off with: a) a tool that requires me to read twenty pages of assembly and operating directions and periodically stops working if I don't follow every instruction just right, or b) a tool that I snap together and start working with immediately (no classes required!), and which performs flawlessly throughout the job?

          How about this one. Lets say you want to simulate the orbits of the planets, satellites (both artificial and natrual), and minor planets of the solar system. Are you better off with

          1. a tool that requires me to read twenty pages of assembly and operating directions and periodically stops working if I don't follow every instruction just right, or
          2. a tool that I snap together and start working with immediately (no classes required!), and which performs flawlessly throughout the job?

          With a moments thought, 2 can't be right. Use a simple system only for simple things.

          • You make the assumption that (2) couldn't exist, so your version of the analogy is sorta pointless. If (2) could exist, then you'd still be able to pick (2). I would still NEVER pick one, since it periodically stops working if I don't follow the instructions just right.

            • Well...the wording is heavily biased to begin with. If you had a choice between

              1. Something good
              2. Something bad

              You'd probably choose the first one. Your example is just an extrapolation of 1 above.

              The reason 2 couldn't exist is because it is too simple to do anything complex. This is not really in regards to OS X but generally.

              With OS X, complex things can be done but only if you read the directions, understand the concepts, and are willing to fix it if it screws up.

              Simple, therefore good is not often true.

      • My macs are pretty darn good at doing the jobs I assign them, so it's a nice bonus that they're pretty.

        And when you look at an ugly user interface all day, you get tired eyes. That's not something you can easily quantify, it's not like a 1.33ghz Athelon versus a 1.4ghz Athelon, but it sure is something you notice.

        I find it far more pleasant to look at MacOS X than Windows (or Linux, for that matter), and that really won me over to the platform. As long as it works, that's a completely natural thing. And it does.

        D
      • Hold it troll boy:

        > My computer is a tool, not a piece of furniture. If i want something pretty, i'll buy a vase. If i need to get a report done or do some graphic layout, I want something that does the fucking job.

        Why not have something that 1. looks aestetically pleasing _and_ 2. gets the job done? I'll take the G4 tower anytime over a dull PC case, for both power and prowess :)

        [snip]
        > ...Oops. It just crashed. Seventeen times. And thanks to Apple's innovative Soft Power, i have to UNPLUG MY FUCKING COMPUTER to turn it off and on again."

        First, those crashes are over because of the Mach/BSD base in OS X, secondly, ever tried _holding_ the power button for a while? This way you force a hard power off on "newer" macs. Problem solved. Oh, the PPC/68k thing is a very OLD 'dilemma'. New macs are obviously PPC, and if they are older PPC's it's marked slap bang across the case that it's a power PC. Or just find out what type of machine you have _once_ and just never forget it.

        Example: Ooh, should I go for the Pentium Pro optimized kernel or the one compiled for 386? Oh shit, the PPro kernel don't boot on that 386, crap. Damn, Linux and Intel suck. See the analogy?

        > "Dude, i've got an idea. Let's get a Free Software core, and put our proprietary garbage on top of it. That way, we'll have tons of *nix geeks worshiping us as 'innovators' and fixing our bugs day in and day out, giving us thousands of man-hours of free development and advancement for our OS, while we reap all the profits and get all the blowjobs!"

        Spoken as a true ignorant person that never tried Mac OS X. _First_ you try, _then_ you judge, capiche?

  • And shock!, it's an iMac even. I got rid of Windows just a bit ago on my pc and installed BSD in it's stead. My other system runs Linux. My iMac is running OS X, with very little chance of running 9.x. The reason why is simple: I like a nice interface that opens up to a horrible ugly little unix box (sarcasm) when you want it to. It's absolutely great!

    I bought this machine because, just like mechanics that work on American cars and drive Hondas, I don't want to put up with the BS when I get home. I like firing up a system that just works.

    I've always been interested in macs, and I never had the bawlz to buy one until the iMac came out. They have a serious winner on their hands, now if only they would market the damn thing without being pretentious.

  • Funny timing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rjamestaylor ( 117847 ) <rjamestaylor@gmail.com> on Monday March 04, 2002 @07:54PM (#3109710) Journal
    I need a new laptop. My Toshiba 2805-202s is over a year old and has put in meritorious service (having survived a shorting power supply, replaced under warranty, and a motherboard-damaging fall, also replaced under warranty free-of-charge), running WinME (for DVD entertainment for the wife and I) and Linux (SuSE then RedHat 7.2; for work), but needs to be replaced.

    This time my employer will purchase a laptop for me -- I just have to choose which one. Since the low end Toshibas no longer come with the point-stick (*sigh*) I'm considering alternatives. Suffice it to say I am torn between an IBM A-series or an Apple Titanium.

    I'm leaning toward the Titanium. And, it's funny, but I feel like I'm returning to a first love... I started with an Apple ][+ in 1979 (I was 12) and eventually had a Apple //e, Apple //c, and, later, a Mac Plus. In the meantime I was using UNIX and DOS. I always hated DOS. Then OS/2 -- it was Ok, but...well...stiff. Then I had the opportunity, as a salesman for Businessland/ComputerCraft, to experience the NeXT -- it was slick and satisfying but unaccessible 'cause of price. But I had to bow to Windows, since I had to support my clients who used a WinTel desktop to access our UNIX accounting package. Eventually I started writing business apps in VB, Access, Paradox...that was an unhappy period. Happily, I found Linux and felt better ('cause I like server-side programming).

    Mac OS X is NeXT but backward Mac compatible and at a reasonable price. That's my take. Playing with the Titanium at Fry's has been enjoyable -- sometimes frustrating, honestly -- and the underlying UNIX is accessible and tempting. Hey - it beats Win4Lin for using Internet Explorer for client-side testing (and I like Win4Lin and won't run Linux without it).

    So I guess I'm getting sucked into the Mac Cult. Blame it on early conditioning...

    My weirdo co-worker [slashdot.org] is also going get the Titanium but will scrap OS X and install PPC Linux. Honestly, I have no idea why.

    • This time my employer will purchase a laptop for me -- I just have to choose which one. Since the low end Toshibas no longer come with the point-stick (*sigh*) I'm considering alternatives. Suffice it to say I am torn between an IBM A-series or an Apple Titanium.

      Er... if your employer is willing to spring for a Titanium, couldn't you also look at the high-end Toshibas?
      • Er... if your employer is willing to spring for a Titanium, couldn't you also look at the high-end Toshibas?

        He's a graphic designer by trade and a Mac fanatic by nature...so an expensive Mac is easier to justify in his eyes than an expensive rice-burner.

    • My weirdo co-worker is also going get the Titanium but will scrap OS X and install PPC Linux. Honestly, I have no idea why.

      Ask a BeOS user.

    • My weirdo co-worker [slashdot.org] is also going get the Titanium but will scrap OS X and install PPC Linux. Honestly, I have no idea why.

      I'm weird like that, too. I bought a refurbished ibook and am running Debian on it. (Of course, it didn't come with OSX, but I could have bought it separately.)

  • As a long time PC user I find myself more an more tempted to get theh new iMac. I can't really justify it let alone afford it yet I can't help myself - it's so tempting now with OS X.

    My best guess is that Apple computers are laced with crack....it's an addiction and it may cost me a fortune.
  • taking after other big vegetable/fruit processing/processor companies.

  • Maybe... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 )
    ...because they make it easy to purchase elitism? I'm guessing these are the same types of people as coffee shop pseudo-intellectuals who buy $5 overpriced organic cappucinno and talk about how much better Gore would have been for the environment, between picking up their kids from soccar practice in their Ford Exorbitant SUVs.

    Compare to rabid, self-righteous, *nix elitists. Except in their case they don't really "purchase" elitism since it's all free.

    Oh boy, I guess this turned into a flame...
  • If the first row of letters on your keyboard reads "qwertyuiop" you are using keyboard layout that was specifically designed to be hard to use so as to keep the keys on an early typewriter from getting tangled. Yet for some reason this keyboard layout is now universally accepted and there are probably people willing to argue that it is the best. The reason it is the standard is because it is the standard. Nobody learns the better-but-non-standard keyboard layouts because it puts them at a disadvantage. Back in the early history of keyboards enough people learn to use the QWERTY layout that other manufacturers adopted it to tap into the established market. When everyone got used to it they didn't feel a need to learn another system.

    If the Mac is better than the standard it is only marginally so. It is not enough better for the majority of computer users to put themselves at a disadvantage by using a non-standard system. Unix and its offshoots suffer from the same problem. The Mac is only enough better to keep the current users content to remain non-standard.

    Window based systems are the accepted standard today because they were the accepted standard yesterday. It has nothing to do with the relative quality of the systems. Without a compelling revolutionary improvement or innovation from the competition Windows and its future progeny will remain the standard. Like the QWERTY keyboard they are here to stay despite the limitations. Apple lost the battle back in the 1980's.
  • is the main source of the story. He just gives soundbytes to the press and has never been right about anything.
    For most of us Mac Users, we do not feel like a cult. We like our computers all right, we can critize them if they deserve it.
    The Cult thing and angle was invented by M$ and overblown by the press. The former wanted to crush a possible future competitor while the later just want to sell trash.
    There is going to be a book by the title "The Cult of the Macintosh". I expect articles like these to be just ads for that book.
  • Clarus is mighty and terrible to behold! Clarus compels you, puny mortal! Obey her! Love her! TOUCH her!

  • One simple word... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BeeShoo ( 42280 )
    One simple word... elegance. I work with Windows boxes every day (hell, I'm even MS certified. HEY, I make more money because of it!), but the only thing I'll use at home are Macs. And it's basically because of elegance. Yes, Windows has gotten MUCH easier to use. But, they still lack elegance. How do you define elegance? That's a tough one, and I don't know that I can. I just know it when I experience it. And I never experience it on Windows (any version)... ...or Linux for that matter. I will definitely give Linux a lot of coolness points, but it does NOT have elegance.

  • On again, off again, on again... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @05:53PM (#3114897) Journal
    I was a big mac fanatic from 1984 until about 1996. It ruled, was years ahead of the competition. But Apple pretty much was stuck for ages and Microsoft caught up (with win 95), then surpassed them (with Windows NT). So I switched.

    How dare you say? OK, I was annoyed by the Windows GUI but let's face it, the Mac OS was still running what was basically 1985 Andy Hertzfeld "Switcher" technology. While there were OS hacks to permit apps to be kind to CPU cycles (co-operative multitasking) and allocating memory from the system space instead of requiring fixed memory size per app, it was still just kludge upon kludge.

    But now I'm heading back. OS X is what I've been wanting for years. The stability and usefulness of UNIX with the user interface that only Apple can do right. I've got my order in for a new iMac to get my toes wet again and if I love it as much as I expect to, I'll be dishing out for a dual G4 in the not too distant future for my main powerbox (It's currently a 2GHZ Intel box running XP Pro).

    I've used them all, so when I get to the point where I will say again that Macs are the best computers out there, it will be an informed opinion!

    (Note to Apple, please bump my iMac order up in the queue... :-)

  • It isn't possible to explain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by epepke ( 462220 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @08:51PM (#3115760)

    Look, it isn't possible to explain this. Many metaphors have been tried, but here's another:

    • Windows is like Budweiser
    • Linux is like homebrew
    • Mac is like hand-pumped Abbott ale

    The Budweiser people who don't understand why some people like to drink Abbott ale never will, because in their minds,

    1. You can get a lot of Budweiser really cheap.
    2. It gets the fucking job done.
    3. Everybody buys it. Look at that market share! Woohoo!

    The homebrew people are a bit more flexible. They might like Abbott Ale, or they might not, but if they don't like it, it's either because they don't like it on its merits or they would rather change the recipe.

    (I should also point out that Be OS is like Old Peculier poured from an elevated oak cask.)

  • The Underdog (Score:2, Insightful)

    by The Donald ( 525605 )
    Everyone loves an underdog. Plain and simple. The big player, Microsoft, doesn't have the implied ideals or fun that Apple has.

    I don't like to see Wal-Mart crush a little store or person. I like to see the smaller guy win sometimes. The same holds for Apple.

    I think most people feel the same way. However, most people still shop at Wal-Mart becuase it's convienent. Same is true for Microsoft. Since it's on every street corner...

  • For my entire life, I've been an advocate of PCs. Aside from my first machine, a commodore64(if you can call that a computer), I've owned PCs exclusively.

    Last summer, I got a job doing various media creation, and had to use Macs exclusively. "Oh no, the horror! I hate the Macs!" is essentially what ran through my mind. They were strange, alien little beasts that I've heard the masses whine about over the years.

    Within a week, I wanted to throw my PC out the window. MacOS 9 is just MacOS, but it's simple, straightforward, and easy to maintain. MacOS X, on the other hand, made me weep in its beauty. Sure, the initial release was pretty slow, but having a terminal(!!!!) pop up when I logged in was a wonderful thing. It's the simplicity of a Mac and the power of a GOOD OS.

    I spent the rest of the summer saving my nickles and pennies for a G4. The release of the dual gigahertz beast was the straw that broke the bank.

    Macs are more expensive, true. They're a bit more proprietary than PCs, true. But, the fact that I have an original, functional Macintosh(a recent gift from someone who didn't want to move it!) gives me plenty of faith that my new Mac will last.

    Oh yeah, and Final Cut Pro beats any other video editing software with the biggest beating stick ever.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Close