Scratch

jvvg wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

What about the fact that the Registry degrades and breaks down after lots of programs installed and uninstalled, etc.

Interesting, that's never happened to me, and some of my computers are very old.

jji7skyline wrote:

It's in one of the Unix directories. go to / and make sure you have invisible folders to be shown.

I'll stick with LAMP, as Linux is a lot more flexible.

jji7skyline wrote:

That's the one I used   

Well, never had problems for my dad, myself, or anyone I know. I think that's your problem.

How long have you had a Windows PC without reinstalling the OS?

Sure. Linux is popular for servers. Macs are much better though. But then again, this is Mac vs PC, not Mac vs Everything else.

Sure, but isn't it interesting that a tool that does the exact same thing, performs differently, on exactly the same computer, but a different OS?

jvvg wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

jvvg wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

What about the fact that the Registry degrades and breaks down after lots of programs installed and uninstalled, etc.

Interesting, that's never happened to me, and some of my computers are very old.

jji7skyline wrote:

It's in one of the Unix directories. go to / and make sure you have invisible folders to be shown.

I'll stick with LAMP, as Linux is a lot more flexible.


Well, never had problems for my dad, myself, or anyone I know. I think that's your problem.

How long have you had a Windows PC without reinstalling the OS?

Sure. Linux is popular for servers. Macs are much better though. But then again, this is Mac vs PC, not Mac vs Everything else.

Sure, but isn't it interesting that a tool that does the exact same thing, performs differently, on exactly the same computer, but a different OS?

1. 10 years
2. No, Linux is better for servers, as it can do pretty much anything you want. Macs are limited to what Apple lets you do.
3. ???

4. Profit! 

jji7skyline wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

jvvg wrote:

1. 10 years
2. No, Linux is better for servers, as it can do pretty much anything you want. Macs are limited to what Apple lets you do.
3. ???

4. Profit! 

Also, everyone seems to believe the propaganda that Apple's software and hardware is very limiting, but it isn't. You can do anything with a Mac that a PC can do, and more.

I'm tired of Mac propaganda saying what you said above.
Warning: infinite loop approaching

jji7skyline wrote:

@fire: Mac hardware is exactly what you would get on a Pc of the same price, and osx pwns windows in all aspects, and then there's bootcamp for gamers.

Also, Apple has the best customer service of.any.computer company.

Plus, I hate it when people say macs are for noobs. They sure are noob friendly, but have more professional and advanced features than windows. Consider for example the built in http server Apache and the built in vnc viewer and server.

Why do you think so many pros like web programmers and graphic designers use Mac?

Mac even comes with a screen video recorder. Windows doesn't have that does it?

As for software support you'll find that Mac has lots of slick apps for everything windows can do. Remember you can bootcamp of you are a real hard gamer. A bit of vdrift every now and again is enough for the likes of me. My life is happier without games.

Um no, you can get a PC with the same specs for alot cheaper. Lets take the current top 15inch MBP that is not a made-to-order (right side on this.  That is a 2.6Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 (3720QM), 8GB DDR3 RAM, 512GB SSD, and a GeForce 650M. That is $2799.

Now lets take a PC laptop with the same i7 CPU. That would be this. It has a 17 inch screen, 16GB of DDR3 RAM, a 750GB HDD/256GB SSD combo, and a Geforce 670M. Beats the MBP on all accounts, yet costs about $600 less. 

The rest of your arguments in this post: Why include software the user may not need? If they do need it, they can download it. If they don't, that is more free disk space for other stuff they do need or want.

I believe jvvg has handled the rest of your Apple propaganda.

jji7skyline wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

jvvg wrote:

1. 10 years
2. No, Linux is better for servers, as it can do pretty much anything you want. Macs are limited to what Apple lets you do.
3. ???

4. Profit! 

Also, everyone seems to believe the propaganda that Apple's software and hardware is very limiting, but it isn't. You can do anything with a Mac that a PC can do, and more.

you can't set the compatibility for apps on mac can you?... 

fire219 wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

I mostly hate Apple for the company, not the software (though the software isn't better than Microsoft's either).  Their entire success is based on their public image, and they will go to any lengths to maintain that image.  Their first response to Mac Defender (malware) was claiming that no malware aimed at OS X could possibly exist.  Their response to the Flashback trojan was attempting to shut down a domain working on figuring out just how much damage had been done by Flashback.  Apple's success has largely been credited to its 'reality distortion field' since Steve Jobs's death: Steve Jobs was a charismatic man who knew how to sell a product, but with him gone, everyone is slowly coming to their senses.

Other than me hating macs and OS X too, I agree with this fully.

Sadly it seems that the reality distortion field is still in full effect distorting jj's mind, along with many others'. D:

I never said I didn't hate Macs or OS X.  I just said that Apple's reality distortion field generates more hate for me than the other things.  Eh, just give it a little more time.  Steve Jobs isn't long dead.  But some things I've been reading written by Apple-lovers are really just sad.  I read somewhere recently that most antivirus companies weren't much faster to fix Flashback than Apple.  That's because ORACLE fixed it almost instantly!  In Java itself!  Also, days translates into hundreds if not thousands of infected computers.

Last edited by maxskywalker (2012-06-21 09:42:15)

fire219 wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

fire219 wrote:

Other than me hating macs and OS X too, I agree with this fully.

Sadly it seems that the reality distortion field is still in full effect distorting jj's mind, along with many others'. D:

I never said I didn't hate Macs or OS X.  I just said that Apple's reality distortion field generates more hate for me than the other things.  Eh, just give it a little more time.  Steve Jobs isn't long dead.  But some things I've been reading written by Apple-lovers are really just sad.  I read somewhere recently that most antivirus companies weren't much faster to fix Flashback than Apple.  That's because ORACLE fixed it almost instantly!  In Java itself!  Also, days translates into hundreds if not thousands of infected computers.

The AV programs probably did pick it up very quickly, but very few Mac users even had/have them, because of the classic Apple fangirl misconception that Macs can't get malware.

I once heard a story where two people were driving their Rolls Royce and it broke down. So, they called the company and they came out in a helicopter. They quickly fixed up the car, and said nothing was wrong with it.

Apple is taking that approach, by saying that it isn't possible for a Mac to get a virus.

maxskywalker wrote:

jvvg wrote:

fire219 wrote:

The AV programs probably did pick it up very quickly, but very few Mac users even had/have them, because of the classic Apple fangirl misconception that Macs can't get malware.

I once heard a story where two people were driving their Rolls Royce and it broke down. So, they called the company and they came out in a helicopter. They quickly fixed up the car, and said nothing was wrong with it.

Apple is taking that approach, by saying that it isn't possible for a Mac to get a virus.

Much well said than I probably could have.  I do believe that Apple was recently accused of using faulty parts, so that's at least a possible first sign of a gap in their 'reality distortion field'.

I didn't hear about that, but that would be a real hurt to Apple, and a real glimpse at reality for their customers.

jji7skyline wrote:

._.

In no way whatsoever does Microsoft use or support open-source.

Uh, what? That's a lie...
What about their two licenses, the Microsoft Public License and the Microsoft Reciprocal License, that are considered open source by the Open Source Initiative and free by the Free Software Foundation?
What about their open source project hosting site, CodePlex?
What about their whole site on their relations with open source software?
What about Windows Azure, which now supports easy install of Ubuntu machines?
They've even recently created their own subdivision for open source.
In the past, they've been known to shun open source, but things are changing.

fire219 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

@fire: Mac hardware is exactly what you would get on a Pc of the same price, and osx pwns windows in all aspects, and then there's bootcamp for gamers.

Also, Apple has the best customer service of.any.computer company.

Plus, I hate it when people say macs are for noobs. They sure are noob friendly, but have more professional and advanced features than windows. Consider for example the built in http server Apache and the built in vnc viewer and server.

Why do you think so many pros like web programmers and graphic designers use Mac?

Mac even comes with a screen video recorder. Windows doesn't have that does it?

As for software support you'll find that Mac has lots of slick apps for everything windows can do. Remember you can bootcamp of you are a real hard gamer. A bit of vdrift every now and again is enough for the likes of me. My life is happier without games.

Um no, you can get a PC with the same specs for alot cheaper. Lets take the current top 15inch MBP that is not a made-to-order (right side on this.  That is a 2.6Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 (3720QM), 8GB DDR3 RAM, 512GB SSD, and a GeForce 650M. That is $2799.

Now lets take a PC laptop with the same i7 CPU. That would be this. It has a 17 inch screen, 16GB of DDR3 RAM, a 750GB HDD/256GB SSD combo, and a Geforce 670M. Beats the MBP on all accounts, yet costs about $600 less. 

The rest of your arguments in this post: Why include software the user may not need? If they do need it, they can download it. If they don't, that is more free disk space for other stuff they do need or want.

I believe jvvg has handled the rest of your Apple propaganda.

Ah, yes. The asus laptop. Well known for breaking hinges. We had one and it broke in 1 year. We have 3macs. They have not yet had a single problem. One of them is 3 years old. And surprisingly, none of the open source projects mentioned by Microsoft are known to me, whereas you probably well know of webkit and xcode both apple projects.

Remember that apple.products have very good product quality. Worth 600 if you ask me. Plus theres great customer service and you don't have to buy yearly licences of antivirus programs.

The 27 imac is good value no matter how you look at it
You can even compare it to a normal desktop.

jji7skyline wrote:

fire219 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

@fire: Mac hardware is exactly what you would get on a Pc of the same price, and osx pwns windows in all aspects, and then there's bootcamp for gamers.

Also, Apple has the best customer service of.any.computer company.

Plus, I hate it when people say macs are for noobs. They sure are noob friendly, but have more professional and advanced features than windows. Consider for example the built in http server Apache and the built in vnc viewer and server.

Why do you think so many pros like web programmers and graphic designers use Mac?

Mac even comes with a screen video recorder. Windows doesn't have that does it?

As for software support you'll find that Mac has lots of slick apps for everything windows can do. Remember you can bootcamp of you are a real hard gamer. A bit of vdrift every now and again is enough for the likes of me. My life is happier without games.

Um no, you can get a PC with the same specs for alot cheaper. Lets take the current top 15inch MBP that is not a made-to-order (right side on this.  That is a 2.6Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 (3720QM), 8GB DDR3 RAM, 512GB SSD, and a GeForce 650M. That is $2799.

Now lets take a PC laptop with the same i7 CPU. That would be this. It has a 17 inch screen, 16GB of DDR3 RAM, a 750GB HDD/256GB SSD combo, and a Geforce 670M. Beats the MBP on all accounts, yet costs about $600 less. 

The rest of your arguments in this post: Why include software the user may not need? If they do need it, they can download it. If they don't, that is more free disk space for other stuff they do need or want.

I believe jvvg has handled the rest of your Apple propaganda.

Ah, yes. The asus laptop. Well known for breaking hinges. We had one and it broke in 1 year. We have 3macs. They have not yet had a single problem. One of them is 3 years old. And surprisingly, none of the open source projects mentioned by Microsoft are known to me, whereas you probably well know of webkit and xcode both apple projects.

Remember that apple.products have very good product quality. Worth 600 if you ask me. Plus theres great customer service and you don't have to buy yearly licences of antivirus programs.

The 27 imac is good value no matter how you look at it
You can even compare it to a normal desktop.

Please, Tell me about the battery life of the 17" Asus? All Macbooks get at least five hours, most 7+.

jji7skyline wrote:

The one we had was a high end 15". Lasted 40 min from a full charge with settings on full and some light web browsing. A little over an hour with battery saving mode and the display so dark you can barely see it.

See, that is one thing Macs have going for them. An actually functional battery. I'm typing this right now from a $500 15" always-plugged-in laptop that, when the power goes out, lasts about two hours on a charge with no internet drawing away power. It also overheats a lot, has a lower resolution display, smaller hard drive, and a worse processor. For another 600 dollars we could get a 13" Macbook pro with all around better specs and 3 times the battery life. It's a laptop; the entire point is that it's supposed to be portable. It's like saying that a massive gaming beast like this twelve-pound, one hour battery life beast is in all ways superior to a netbook. Personally I say a netbook wins this race, because with 12 pounds and practically no battery life you'd be just as well off carrying around your more powerful desktop than this "laptop" (it would burn and crush your legs) to a LAN party or otherwise.

If you don't have a good battery life, it doesn't matter what specs you have; it's just a really expensive, really heavy, paperweight.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-06-22 09:13:18)