Apple criticisms. Software, standards, etc.
[edit by Brad: This thread was split off from the Adobe recommending PC's in print, now discussion]
Reading this thread has made me sick.. I'm so sick and tired of people bashing PC's as slow and unreliable. I've run my windows boxes, with more then a year uptime. Never have they been affected by a virus, nor a exploit. You know why? I'm smart and know how to use a computer. I know how to maintain it. Its the same with cars, if they are maintained they run better... Now since Apple requires less maintance and less knowledge to be secure, it can be argued that they are for less-intelligent people. Not that I will make such a claim, but still.
Adobe could completely drop its Mac line, and nothing would change. With the next revision of Photoshop people would move over. The Digital Content Market is seriously looking at PC's now with the advent of AMD's Athlon 64, FX, and Opertron. Once Microsoft's new version of XP comes out and optimized for 64bit, it should run alot better. I'm willing to bet we'll see more 64bit apps on the PC faster then the Mac.
I'm sick of hearing that Windows sucks, and XP is unstable, and all this non-sense. Any problems in windows are just as many in OSX. I've had some really weird stuff happen to me while I was using freebsd, and the same when I was using windows. The only major difference is Windows is more popular and is required to be on a large amount of hardware. Its impossible to optimize it so it runs superquick on certain hardware. However there is no excuse for Apple not having a super streamlined and optimzed version of its OSX seeing as they sell both hardware and software, and the lack of this optimized OSX shows a real lack of quality to me.
My last and final comment is, no matter what platform you use if you are an incompentent user then you will have problems, same as a car, if you don't take care of it, you can't complain when it dies.
Reading this thread has made me sick.. I'm so sick and tired of people bashing PC's as slow and unreliable. I've run my windows boxes, with more then a year uptime. Never have they been affected by a virus, nor a exploit. You know why? I'm smart and know how to use a computer. I know how to maintain it. Its the same with cars, if they are maintained they run better... Now since Apple requires less maintance and less knowledge to be secure, it can be argued that they are for less-intelligent people. Not that I will make such a claim, but still.
Adobe could completely drop its Mac line, and nothing would change. With the next revision of Photoshop people would move over. The Digital Content Market is seriously looking at PC's now with the advent of AMD's Athlon 64, FX, and Opertron. Once Microsoft's new version of XP comes out and optimized for 64bit, it should run alot better. I'm willing to bet we'll see more 64bit apps on the PC faster then the Mac.
I'm sick of hearing that Windows sucks, and XP is unstable, and all this non-sense. Any problems in windows are just as many in OSX. I've had some really weird stuff happen to me while I was using freebsd, and the same when I was using windows. The only major difference is Windows is more popular and is required to be on a large amount of hardware. Its impossible to optimize it so it runs superquick on certain hardware. However there is no excuse for Apple not having a super streamlined and optimzed version of its OSX seeing as they sell both hardware and software, and the lack of this optimized OSX shows a real lack of quality to me.
My last and final comment is, no matter what platform you use if you are an incompentent user then you will have problems, same as a car, if you don't take care of it, you can't complain when it dies.
Comments
Originally posted by scavanger
Reading this thread has made me sick.. I'm so sick and tired of people bashing PC's as slow and unreliable. I've run my windows boxes, with more then a year uptime. Never have they been affected by a virus, nor a exploit. You know why? I'm smart and know how to use a computer. I know how to maintain it. Its the same with cars, if they are maintained they run better...
...
My last and final comment is, no matter what platform you use if you are an incompentent user then you will have problems, same as a car, if you don't take care of it, you can't complain when it dies.
First off, how can you get a year uptime if you install the security patches? No joke. I don't mean to make fun of all the security patches, but you have to reboot after most of them. Are they just not used on the internet?
Second, it's true that incompetent users mess things up much, much more.
Lastly, XP isn't anything near perfect and no less polished than OS X in my opinion. Both crash and have problems, but I just prefer OS X for any number of reasons.
OSX should be more polished tho... I think the general idea I always had on Apple before I really read into them, that they were supposedly better becuase they developed hardware and then made a optimized OS for that hardware.
If there are little or no optimizations for the hardware, why should I buy it? Why not buy something of comparable speeds on the PC front and have and unoptimized windows box that cost me half as much, and can run 20x more programs.
Originally posted by scavanger
If there are little or no optimizations for the hardware, why should I buy it? Why not buy something of comparable speeds on the PC front and have and unoptimized windows box that cost me half as much, and can run 20x more programs.
True, because, after all, we need a least two dozen word processor programs, at least fourteen distinct sticky note programs, six media players, a quintillion chat programs, forty ways to steal music and a popup blocker for IE (Microsoft only recently discovered that people seem to hate them).
...20x more programs!? Is this about games? Be honest, this is about games, isn't it?
Screed
Originally posted by scavanger
OSX should be more polished tho... I think the general idea I always had on Apple before I really read into them, that they were supposedly better becuase they developed hardware and then made a optimized OS for that hardware.
First I agree PC's aren't as bad as people on these boards make them out to be. XP worked fine for me and was stable and relatively fast on my older box.
Second...I've never bought an Apple computer for speed. It may be faster...it is faster at some things and slower at other. I buy Apple because of quality and style. Apple makes the OS for their hardware so it works seemlessly. Apple makes their OS for this hardware so you don't have to worry about .dll files (a problem I did have on my XP box.) Apple makes the OS for their hardware so they have control.
I really don't think this is being biased but I definatly think the quality of programs on macs are better then on the PC. Not for all programs but for many it just seems more thought is put into them...or they are designed better. Quality software is worth it's weight in gold, what mp3 player software was used before iTunes? Not even comparable.
I don't mean 20 different word programs, or all that... I just mean that I can use many more different kinds of programs on my PC then a Mac.
I will always have Winamp > iTunes... for the simple fact that I hate Quicktime, and wished apple would adopt something like XviD or DivX. Instead of AAC how about Ogg Vorbis, or some other open sourced file format, instead of creating more propreitary formats that you hate microsoft for.
Just 2 More Cents.
Originally posted by sCreeD
True, because, after all, we need a least two dozen word processor programs, at least fourteen distinct sticky note programs, six media players, a quintillion chat programs, forty ways to steal music and a popup blocker for IE (Microsoft only recently discovered that people seem to hate them).
...20x more programs!? Is this about games? Be honest, this is about games, isn't it?
Screed
Right on. THat's what I keep telling my friends: there's no goodapplication that the PC has that we don't, plus a whole load of great mac-only programs, like Safari.
Instead of AAC how about Ogg Vorbis, or some other open sourced file format, instead of creating more propreitary formats that you hate microsoft for.
AAC is an open format. See MPEG Working Group: http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/aac.html. QT is also based on MPEG open standards. Don't go all Winclot here and claim to be impartial.
Is this about games? Be honest, this is about games, isn't it?
Seriously, WHERE ARE MAH BUDGET MAC GAMES ? (Or ones that don't cost thirty to forty pounds). I've only ever come across two real budget Mac games on the high street: Total Annihilation Gold (£1.79) and Starcraft (£10, hybrid CD).
There's also the matter of their being CONVICTED OF ABUSING THEIR MONOPOLY, but please--let's not let facts cloud the issue.
Originally posted by scavanger
Now since Apple requires less maintance and less knowledge to be secure, it can be argued that they are for less-intelligent people.
By the same token it could be argued that someone who choses to use a system that requires constant unwarranted maintenance is a dummy. No? Intelligence isn't based on "being experienced at."
Originally posted by scavanger
I'm sorry but I don't see anyone but apple using AAC really. Ogg Vorbis and XviD would be more applicable. I hate WMV and ASF and all that microsoft formats. I'm just saying lets use something more open sourced then AAC and Quicktime.. quicktime has always been a horrible codec, and will always be, especially considered to xvid.
Look a little harder. Nero had AAC support before Apple did. Winamp has had AAC support for a while also. Ogg is nice but it offers no copyright protection which means it's useless as a viable commercial format. I get your point though...if we all could be trusted we'd have more option but free is hard to turn down from alot of people.
Plus I don't think people hate Windows here but most of us just prefer Apples "flavor" of Operating System more. I LOVE great software more than I love great hardware. The ideal choice would be to have both but great software on slow hardware to me is preferrable to crappy software on fast hardwar.
I feel like the industry has bogged down in many areas. If I'm a new user I'm told to get Photoshop for photograph editing or ProTools for audio. I'm told to use office for my Productivity Suite. Standards are nice but they can also impede progress.
I do not wish Adobe's products to leave the platform but rather I would like to see new ideas about how to accomplish photo editing.
Note that the recent optimizations that Apple has done for Final Cut Pro/Shake/ DVD Studio Pro show that they are committed to improving their products and the results are happy customers. I'm not feelin' that love from Adobe right now and to be fair other developers as well.
Originally posted by scavanger
quicktime has always been a horrible codec, and will always be, especially considered to xvid.
Quicktime isn't a codec. Did you mean Sorenson? Pixlet? MPEG-4?
Now since Apple requires less maintance and less knowledge to be secure, it can be argued that they are for less-intelligent people.
Less maintenance required --> less time spent on maintenance --> greater productivity --> an effectively "faster" computer.
(Depending, of course, on hardware.)
Originally posted by scavanger
I would say Mozilla Firebird > Safari as well.. you may not see this but apple has alot of the same practices microsoft does, just you guys hate MS's more.
Do you not realize that Safari is built on open source code? Do you not realize that Apple submits its updates and changes back to the open source community? KDE and Konqueror people were absolutely ecstatic when they discovered that Apple was contributing so generously back to this project and the open source community in general.
If you prefer Firebird, that's great. It's available for Mac and runs pretty well. In fact, if you never want to see Safari again, you can simply drag it to the Trash and empty it. It's gone. No hassles. I'd like to see you be able to do that with Internet Explorer on Windows.
quicktime has always been a horrible codec, and will always be, especially considered to xvid
As already pointed out, QuickTime is a container, not a codec. If you have an ugly-looking QuickTime file, blame the codec (ie. Cinepak, Sorenson, MPEG-4, DV, DivX, 3ivX, etc.) not QuickTime. There are some really good codecs available for QuickTime. You can't blame Apple if Joe User doesn't pick a good one for his content that you're watching.
Originally posted by Stoo
Seriously, WHERE ARE MAH BUDGET MAC GAMES ? (Or ones that don't cost thirty to forty pounds). I've only ever come across two real budget Mac games on the high street: Total Annihilation Gold (£1.79) and Starcraft (£10, hybrid CD).
i actually brought this same point up in a thread long ago (maybe pre-appleinsider blackout), where i would go to a computer store, and see a bargain bin eight feet deep of cool pc games only 6-8 months old, but mac games even YEARS old were still being sold for full-price. no one was buying them, of course, but there they were.yes, let's buy lode runner 2 for full price a year after release... ugh.
the only thing i can guess is that there are SO MANY new pc titles that they force the other ones off the shelf fast, and drop the price way more quickyl due to the excessive number of similar titles. of course, the main games (diablo, quake, etc.) stay at full price for a lot longer because they can, but go to the games section of a computer store in the pc section and see how many FPS or RPG style games there are. yeah, there are a lot of bad and mediocre ones, but they saturate the genres. but if you want an FPS on the mac, you only have 3-4 current choices. fewer choices, higher prices because they can be.
the way to fix this? apple needs a new bungie. seriously. they need a game developer with super-innovative games that develops solely for the mac, or the mac first. and pangaea ain't it. that way, they can become the standard-bearers and let the others fill in the gaps. yes, it'll help as people increase their buying habits, and there's a more profitable market, too.
Unix isn't less maintance, its more. I've used it many a times, lots of time spent recompiling dependancies and such. Those auto updaters are good, but not great... especially since I no longer trust them after the one in Red Hat broke my kernal.
No system is perfect. Windows is less perfect than Mac OS X.