Comments

I am so sick and tired of Mac zealots going around acting like their all that and a bag of microchips. But really, Mac users think they have the right to complain about everything and think that everything they do is better because it's on a Mac. Using a machine with a 150% hardware markup because of a silly OS that Apple built off an existing FREE unix-like OS is no reason to think you're God.

Believe me, if Apple has the market share Windows had, there would be plenty of driver issues for all the 3rd party accessories there are for Windows machines now, there would be much more malware targeted at Mac users, and there would be a lot more complaints about crashes, spinning beachballs of death and kernel panics.

Nearly every Mac user I know acts like that stuck up asshole portrayed in the Mac vs. PC commercials, who's actor by the way, is completely computer incompetent, as he himself admitted. They think they have the right to look down on everyone, and make up "facts" to try to prove themselves right. Seriously, Mac users, stop being such dicks.

First of all, yes, the upgrade to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is only $29! Wow, what a great deal, except for the users of old PowerPC Macs that won't get any support at all. Yes, I know I said as software advances the hardware must too, but a PC that can run Windows Vista can cost as little as $400, the cheapest Mac is $999. There's a bit of a difference there.

And it's not exactly like you can just upgrade a Mac too, like you can a generic PC, because everything is locked into Apple's platform. Meanwhile, nearly all Windows Vista machines are capable of running Windows 7. Who is the upgrade cheaper for now? I'd shut up right now if I were you.

Secondly, Mac OS X Leopard doesn't really perform any better than Windows Vista does, and certainly not better than Windows 7, which is soon to be the new standard, if at all. It uses slightly less RAM than Vista does when running comparable applications, and you could go even further and disable SuperFetch in Vista to use even less.

And as for the amazing iLife, the programs aren't even that good. iWeb is garbage, it's no better than making a WordPress blog, or using Windows Live Writer. iPhoto? I think Windows Live Photo Gallery compares fine. How about iDVD? Windows Live DVD Maker works fine once again. iMovie? Windows Live Movie Maker, is once again, perfectly fine. The difference is, iLife updates cost money, and Windows Live programs are free downloads, I don't see why iLife is so great.

And as for iWork being "so much better" than Microsoft Office? Great! You're comparing a product with half of the features, the ones you use, with something with twice as many features for a wider variety to use. Sure, it's a great deal since it's cheaper if you don't need those features, but, Microsoft Office and iWork aren't even the only options.

How about StarOffice from Sun Microsystems? It only costs $40, and includes nearly as many features as Microsoft Office, and is cross-platform. But wait, it get's better, you can get OpenOffice.org, StarOffice's open source brother, for FREE! So, remind me again, how in God's name is iWork a good deal? I'm not saying Microsoft Office is either, but seriously, shut up. Especially with the yearly updates to iWork that works out to be the same as buying Microsoft Office every few years.

And how about all the things you CAN'T do on a Mac? Hey, Mac users, did you watch Paul Blart on Blu-Ray in 1080p on your laptops? No? Well I didn't think so, considering the lowest cost Mac with a 1080p display is over $2000, and doesn't include a BD-ROM drive, what a shame. How about those great games you can play in OS X, life Team Fortress 2, Crysis, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead and...oh wait, those games are for Windows!

And we've all heard about how great Macs are for graphics work, so let's look at those great GPUs that are available in your Mac Pros. Let's see, a Radeon 4870 512mb...not bad...$350? That's ridiculous! Considering it's a $130 card for a PC. Well, the superior GTX 285 from EVGA should perform better of course, except that it gets just about the same performance. Wow, Macs get really good performance out of graphics cards...

Comments

Yeah! And so does XP, it's a freaking memory whore! 256 Mb of RAM to run an OS? Ha! Let's all run Windows 2000, it only needed half of that, or even better, Windows 95, it used even less. You know what? GUIs in general use too much resources, let's just use DOS! Eh, you know what? Fuck DOS, let's just go back to typing into a BASIC interpreter, get out your floppies! You know what? Floppies are too unsightly, let's just use paper tapes.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Software and hardware both evolve, you can't simply pick one and not the other, of course you're not going to be able to run Vista on the same machines that ran XP 5 years ago. It has hgiher system requirements for obvious reasons. It makes better use of newer hardware, it has better security, it's more aesthetically appealing, and it has more features.

Stop whining that you can't run it on your Pentium 4s with 256 Mb of RAM, or that your 40GB hard-disk hardly has any room after installing Vista, and do one of two things. Either stick with XP until the computer spontaneously combusts and use obsolete, unsupported, insecure technology, or suck it up and buy a new computer. There are plenty of laptops and desktops at the 300-400 USD range that can run Vista fine, so stop complaining.

Comments

I've mostly finished all of the features for my blog, including the comment system, so I'm going to start mirroring some of my journal entries from deviantART over to here. I'm going to break some of them up for organization when I add categories later, but that's another story.

I forgot to mention, I also didn't add any way to respond to comments yet, so bear with me while I work on it. I didn't feel it was really an essential feature, so sorry for those of you who want to post long-winded rants at eachother. Just write eachothers names and hope they look back. =p

By the way, due to security reasons, I can't have HTML code allowed in comments, but I'm going to be adding a custom syntax for certain things, like basic styling, images and maybe even youtube videos like they allow on certain forums. (ie. [b][/b], [img src="" /])

Comments

Of all of the garbage I've been hearing lately, this is the worst of it all. The European Union is pretty much forcing Microsoft to include the option for the end user to select a web browser to use during setup. Now, you may be thinking, "Hey! That's great, IE sucks", but God honestly, this is a bad thing.

It's absolutely ridiculous for the European Union to tell Microsoft that it has to include a competitor's (Mozilla, Opera, Apple, Google, etc.) product (FireFox, Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc.) with their own (Internet Explorer) and allow the user to select the competitor's over their own, or that they're not allowed to include a specific component (Internet Explorer) with their own product (Windows 7).

Firstly, why doesn't every web browser ever written get included as an option too then? Why do certain companies get to have their products included in Windows? Why can't I complain to the European Union and say "hey! I want my own web browser that I wrote in about 20 seconds in C# that does absolutely nothing productive included with Windows too!"

It's simply retarded, it obviously favors selective companies that already have a large slice of market share, and furthermore, it's not even like they make a profit off of it, most browsers are free! They don't NEED the users, they're not losing money from NOT having users, and they're not making any attempt to advertise on their own. When's the last time you saw a commercial for FireFox while watching cable?

It may seem like a good thing, and it may seem like it gives the consumer more choice, but this is just another excuse for the EU to fine Microsoft, another thing for Apple, Opera, Google and Mozilla to bitch about for no reason, and another headache for the consumer that doesn't know the difference anyway.

Comments