John Dvorak blasts Macs...
Â*\tFrom:Â*\tGATOGORDO2KÂ*\t12:06 amÂ* To:Â*\tPC_MAGAZINE
unread\tÂ*(481 of 484)Â* Â*\t9085.481 in reply to 9085.1Â* John, John,
John. What a sad display of punditry, of irresponsible, ill-informed
rhetoric spew. As Jules said in Pulp Fiction, "allow me to retort..."
First, you suggest the Mac should be put down like "an old dog." Then
<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1885,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1885,00.asp</a>;
Worst part is, I had to register so that I could respond to this tripe.
....here's my response:
Â*\tFrom:Â*\tGATOGORDO2KÂ*\t12:06 amÂ* To:Â*\tPC_MAGAZINE
unread\tÂ*(481 of 484)Â* Â*\t9085.481 in reply to 9085.1Â* John, John,
John. What a sad display of punditry, of irresponsible, ill-informed
rhetoric spew. As Jules said in Pulp Fiction, "allow me to retort..."
First, you suggest the Mac should be put down like "an old dog." Then
you admit that the Mac is the source of innovation, from which other
"copycat" platforms like Windows learn their new tricks. Now which one
is the old dog? The one teaching the new tricks or the one that finally
learns them? A contradiction within the first two stanzas of this
ill-conceived tripe.
And then some misinformation: "The company also rolled out some 1U
rackmount servers for Mac-heads who like running massive Web sites with
Mac technology."
"Mac technology?" It's called Apache, it's a tried-and-true web serving
technology. If you demonstrated any knowledge of computers at all, I
would assume you've heard of it. It's called Unix, an operating system
that's stood the test of time (over 30 years in fact). To imply that
Macintosh as a platform is non-compliant or for "Macheads" only is
ridiculous. It's Microsoft who insists on remaining proprietary. Those
1U rackmount servers are not for Macheads. They are for anyone who
wants a cost-effective Unix-based serving solution, particularly in a
culstering setting. Biotech comes to mind, and there will be many other
applications for such a great innovation. Not exclusively "Macheads"
running webservers. Maybe just people who are tired of paying
Microsoft's individual licensing fees, or talking to different
companies for hardware versus software support, or having high overhead
in terms of administration.
But John, the crap you're shovelling gets appalingly thicker still:
"Steve Jobs was brought back to add some flair, but underneath the
glitz the new Mac was still the old Mac. OS X, with its underlying Unix
kernel, an update. The new kernel was necessary to better manage
today's networked multimedia."
OS X, an update? Are you insane? It's unlikely that you could find a
single line of duplicate code between OS 9 and OS X. OS X is what
Microsoft has always needed to do but never had the guts: a complete
fresh start on the operating system. Not an overhaul, much less a
"revision," but a rewrite. Mac continues to be the bleeding edge, the
platform of innovation, the platform whom you mentioned Wintel
"copycating" earlier in your article.
And you're missing the point of the new kernel. The capabilities of
Unix go way beyond multimedia management. Being open source also opens
up a brave new world of compatibility and software. The advantages are
countless.
After this misguided paragraph, you go on to praise what a remarkable
achievement OS X is (and it is), saying Apple has achieved the
impossible. Frankly, it sounds like you don't have a clue. You
contradict yourself here yet again.
And what exactly do you mean by saying that Apple should create a new
machine that is not a Macintosh? Macintosh is a brand, nothing more.
The technology bearing that badge has gone through an enormous change
over the years and continues to do so. That statement is more empty
rhetoric... it makes no sense. Mac is also the only exciting,
innovative platform, and here you are saying it should be eliminated.
Sounds like you got a bug up your bum John. Tell us what you really
think...
Here is the simple bottom line that you have such difficulty with:
Apple offers an alternative. In my opinion, a far better alternative,
and certainly one that is much more rewarding to use, and has a much
more exciting (if unpredictable at times) future. I limit my use of PCs
because I prefer Macs. However, since I am secure in my platform's
superiority, I bear no ill will towards PCs. You're argument of form
over substance is moot: Apple's products are in my opinion superior...
AND look nicer. Your opinion, even if it were validated by accurate
information, cannot change this for me or any other "Macheads." It may
be comfort to those who think they are saving money by getting a $800
computer that will be obsolete in a year, but not to we the lucky few
who know the joy of using a computer that WORKS and is a pleasure to
use.
John, you are not a good writer, and you are very badly informed. It
makes me wonder how you continue to pollute the media.
Try harder, maybe you'll do better next time.
unread\tÂ*(481 of 484)Â* Â*\t9085.481 in reply to 9085.1Â* John, John,
John. What a sad display of punditry, of irresponsible, ill-informed
rhetoric spew. As Jules said in Pulp Fiction, "allow me to retort..."
First, you suggest the Mac should be put down like "an old dog." Then
<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1885,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1885,00.asp</a>;
Worst part is, I had to register so that I could respond to this tripe.
....here's my response:
Â*\tFrom:Â*\tGATOGORDO2KÂ*\t12:06 amÂ* To:Â*\tPC_MAGAZINE
unread\tÂ*(481 of 484)Â* Â*\t9085.481 in reply to 9085.1Â* John, John,
John. What a sad display of punditry, of irresponsible, ill-informed
rhetoric spew. As Jules said in Pulp Fiction, "allow me to retort..."
First, you suggest the Mac should be put down like "an old dog." Then
you admit that the Mac is the source of innovation, from which other
"copycat" platforms like Windows learn their new tricks. Now which one
is the old dog? The one teaching the new tricks or the one that finally
learns them? A contradiction within the first two stanzas of this
ill-conceived tripe.
And then some misinformation: "The company also rolled out some 1U
rackmount servers for Mac-heads who like running massive Web sites with
Mac technology."
"Mac technology?" It's called Apache, it's a tried-and-true web serving
technology. If you demonstrated any knowledge of computers at all, I
would assume you've heard of it. It's called Unix, an operating system
that's stood the test of time (over 30 years in fact). To imply that
Macintosh as a platform is non-compliant or for "Macheads" only is
ridiculous. It's Microsoft who insists on remaining proprietary. Those
1U rackmount servers are not for Macheads. They are for anyone who
wants a cost-effective Unix-based serving solution, particularly in a
culstering setting. Biotech comes to mind, and there will be many other
applications for such a great innovation. Not exclusively "Macheads"
running webservers. Maybe just people who are tired of paying
Microsoft's individual licensing fees, or talking to different
companies for hardware versus software support, or having high overhead
in terms of administration.
But John, the crap you're shovelling gets appalingly thicker still:
"Steve Jobs was brought back to add some flair, but underneath the
glitz the new Mac was still the old Mac. OS X, with its underlying Unix
kernel, an update. The new kernel was necessary to better manage
today's networked multimedia."
OS X, an update? Are you insane? It's unlikely that you could find a
single line of duplicate code between OS 9 and OS X. OS X is what
Microsoft has always needed to do but never had the guts: a complete
fresh start on the operating system. Not an overhaul, much less a
"revision," but a rewrite. Mac continues to be the bleeding edge, the
platform of innovation, the platform whom you mentioned Wintel
"copycating" earlier in your article.
And you're missing the point of the new kernel. The capabilities of
Unix go way beyond multimedia management. Being open source also opens
up a brave new world of compatibility and software. The advantages are
countless.
After this misguided paragraph, you go on to praise what a remarkable
achievement OS X is (and it is), saying Apple has achieved the
impossible. Frankly, it sounds like you don't have a clue. You
contradict yourself here yet again.
And what exactly do you mean by saying that Apple should create a new
machine that is not a Macintosh? Macintosh is a brand, nothing more.
The technology bearing that badge has gone through an enormous change
over the years and continues to do so. That statement is more empty
rhetoric... it makes no sense. Mac is also the only exciting,
innovative platform, and here you are saying it should be eliminated.
Sounds like you got a bug up your bum John. Tell us what you really
think...
Here is the simple bottom line that you have such difficulty with:
Apple offers an alternative. In my opinion, a far better alternative,
and certainly one that is much more rewarding to use, and has a much
more exciting (if unpredictable at times) future. I limit my use of PCs
because I prefer Macs. However, since I am secure in my platform's
superiority, I bear no ill will towards PCs. You're argument of form
over substance is moot: Apple's products are in my opinion superior...
AND look nicer. Your opinion, even if it were validated by accurate
information, cannot change this for me or any other "Macheads." It may
be comfort to those who think they are saving money by getting a $800
computer that will be obsolete in a year, but not to we the lucky few
who know the joy of using a computer that WORKS and is a pleasure to
use.
John, you are not a good writer, and you are very badly informed. It
makes me wonder how you continue to pollute the media.
Try harder, maybe you'll do better next time.
Comments
Please post in one of these threads which are already covering the topic of John 'Ass Face' Dvorak:
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001754"; target="_blank">Dvorak slams the Mac(again)</a>
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001781"; target="_blank">
More whining from Dvorak</a>
J :cool: