Scratch

I agree with what 16Skittles said, except for the programmer part.  In my opinion, the best for a programmer is Windows dual-booted with Ubuntu.

Last edited by maxskywalker (2012-06-04 10:15:25)

maxskywalker wrote:

I agree with what 16Skittles said, except for the programmer part.  In my opinion, the best for a programmer is Windows dual-booted with Ubuntu.

Well if you want to reach users of OSX or iOS then a Mac is necessary.

sanddude wrote:

-I prefer right-clicking to command-clicking

For the record, it's control-click 

northmeister wrote:

sanddude wrote:

-I prefer right-clicking to command-clicking

For the record, it's control-click 

Yes, and you can turn on right clicking too. It's just not turned on by default.

veggieman001 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

northmeister wrote:

For the record, it's control-click 

Yes, and you can turn on right clicking too. It's just not turned on by default.

Unless you have one of the dorky Apple mice that only has one button

It still looks much cooler than any ugly logitech mouse.

Check this out    http://www.scratch.mit.edu/ext/youtube/?v=nyuR58wiZ50

veggieman001 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

Unless you have one of the dorky Apple mice that only has one button

It still looks much cooler than any ugly logitech mouse.

Check this out    http://www.scratch.mit.edu/ext/youtube/?v=nyuR58wiZ50

Those mice with the clear plastic and then black or whatever look really dumb.

And I don't really care about how a computer looks, just whether it works and has a UI that I like.

Let me paraphrase Stephen Fry.

fry wrote:

Some people say that how a computer looks doesn't matter as long as it gets the job done. This isn't true, if a computer looks good, you are more likely to use it, and therefore, you'll get more work done.

Not the only reason computers should look slick, but it is still a very good reason.

Last edited by jji7skyline (2012-06-04 20:06:04)

jji7skyline wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

It still looks much cooler than any ugly logitech mouse.

Check this out    http://www.scratch.mit.edu/ext/youtube/?v=nyuR58wiZ50

Those mice with the clear plastic and then black or whatever look really dumb.

And I don't really care about how a computer looks, just whether it works and has a UI that I like.

Let me paraphrase Stephen Fry.

fry wrote:

Some people say that how a computer looks doesn't matter as long as it gets the job done. This isn't true, if a computer looks good, you are more likely to use it, and therefore, you'll get more work done.

Not the only reason computers should look slick, but it is still a very good reason.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg502/sc … es=landing

if you are a sensible person you shouldnt care how your computer looks as long as it works

jji7skyline wrote:

777w wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

Those mice with the clear plastic and then black or whatever look really dumb.

And I don't really care about how a computer looks, just whether it works and has a UI that I like.

Let me paraphrase Stephen Fry.


Not the only reason computers should look slick, but it is still a very good reason.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg502/sc … es=landing

if you are a sensible person you shouldnt care how your computer looks as long as it works

Isn't it a bonus though, if your computer functions great and looks awesome as well?

No. I'm more likely to use my computer if it's less attractive.

jji7skyline wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

It still looks much cooler than any ugly logitech mouse.

Check this out    http://www.scratch.mit.edu/ext/youtube/?v=nyuR58wiZ50

Those mice with the clear plastic and then black or whatever look really dumb.

And I don't really care about how a computer looks, just whether it works and has a UI that I like.

Let me paraphrase Stephen Fry.

fry wrote:

Some people say that how a computer looks doesn't matter as long as it gets the job done. This isn't true, if a computer looks good, you are more likely to use it, and therefore, you'll get more work done.

Not the only reason computers should look slick, but it is still a very good reason.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg502/sc … es=landing

Imo those are ugly. iMacs look good though.

Really looking forward to WWDC! Updates to all the Macs so I can spend more money that I don't have!

Also, I'll take a good looking computer out in public then return to my man cave with a boss gaming computer with exposed circut boards and everything. 

jji7skyline wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

Those mice with the clear plastic and then black or whatever look really dumb.

And I don't really care about how a computer looks, just whether it works and has a UI that I like.

Let me paraphrase Stephen Fry.


Not the only reason computers should look slick, but it is still a very good reason.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg502/sc … es=landing

Imo those are ugly. iMacs look good though.

Really looking forward to WWDC! Updates to all the Macs so I can spend more money that I don't have!

Also, I'll take a good looking computer out in public then return to my man cave with a boss gaming computer with exposed circut boards and everything. 

I'm looking forward to retina display Macs and Ivy Bridge processors. Take that Microsoft! 

I don't know if I'm an oddball or what, but I really don't care if my computer has lightning quick speed or stunning hi-def graphics.

16Skittles wrote:

The micro review!


Windows

Pros:
Most people are familiar with the layout, which, apart from the styles, has hardly changed since '95.

Many apps are created specifically on windows, as well as many game libraries. There is a much larger selection of games on windows than Mac.

Not part of a cult-like organization.

Does not make its own hardware. While this means that there are many products of inferior quality, there are others with amazingly high quality. (just check out the VAIO Z)

Cons:

Known for its errors. The BSOD, while rare, still occaisionally will surface. On a personal note, I have only experienced the BSOD on Vista or earlier; I have never blue screened on Windows 7.

Also known for the abundance of viruses. If you're not torrenting a bunch of files and have a good antivirus, you're safe. If you're not a complete moron you probably will be able to get by without AV software.


Mac

Pros:
Sexy. That's the word for it. Apple is all about making good looking products. Their current line is no different, except maybe the ugly Mac Mini, which is basically just the "hey, I just met you. And this is crazy. But I'm a Mac. So program on me. (for iOS)"

Well, that's about it. Apple products are sold based on their features like that. Thin, light, aluminum. That's awesome.

Cons:
Closed up. Apple's open source "based on unix" stuff is a bunch of garbage. As shown with
Flashback, a virus that infects based on a java vulnerability, Oracle released an update for PCs, but Apple, who releases their own version of the Java VM, left the security hole open for weeks.

Makes decisions to "enhance the user experience" that many users may find annoying. Now, before I go and say that Apple should have put Flash on the iPad I will say that it is true that Flash does use battery faster than normal. At the same time  it leaves out much of the web and Apples own iAd service has been shown to reduce the battery life in ad-supported lite versions versus the ad-free paid versions of apps.


My verdict:
I am typing this on my iPad and am not really in the mood to list everything, so I'll just sum it up in a tl;dr version.

Are you:

On the go? Get a MacBook Air or the 13" pro. You can install Windows on it, they look good, are portable, and have build quality that will last through travel.

A programmer? If on the go, refer to the first. Get a Mac Mini, and dual or tri-boot (OSX and Windows, OSX Windows and Ubuntu) and maybe use the money saved of buying a full Mac to buy a cheaper PC. Decent ones can be gotten in the 600 dollar range, combined with the mini are on par with the base 13" pro or the first usable (read: not crying for more RAM/SSD) air.

A gamer? unless you really need a laptop, dedicate all your budget into a good, custom, windows desktop. If you need something to take notes on the go then just grab a netbook for cheap, or if you have the money, an iPad.

Someone who only needs their computer to do basic tasks, ie checking emails, Facebook, etc.?
iPad. They are pretty cheap, functional, and not lame build quality like a netbook. As of right now, Apple pretty much dominates the tablet market by creating not-lame hardware that runs a tested OS. Android, on the other hand, has lame producers making 100 dollar tablets that are thick, flimsy, and barely even functional running a stripped-down version of Android that can't really use all of its features.


Wow that's my second rant post in two days. I'm out, and don't troll my spelling!

android is WAY better than the iphone it's also WAY faster

ftf841 wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

*snip*

android is WAY better than the iphone it's also WAY faster

First off, I'm not saying Android is bad, in fact I like some features of it better; Open source, widgets, etc.

The problem is that unlike Apple, they do not make their own hardware. It's the same problem that Microsoft has with its OS: It may be a good operating system, but since they do not control the quality of their hardware they can not ensure that everyone has a good user experience. Android devices are made with different processors, RAM amounts, etc., which means that apps that may run on some devices won't work on others, and some hardware is (extremely) low quality. I have little experience with android tablets myself but have heard of horrible issues with them. The iPad is truly amazing; thin, beautiful, and relatively cheap. As an alternative to iOS I personally would recommend Windows 8.

hdarken wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

The micro review!


Windows

Pros:
Most people are familiar with the layout, which, apart from the styles, has hardly changed since '95.

Many apps are created specifically on windows, as well as many game libraries. There is a much larger selection of games on windows than Mac.

Not part of a cult-like organization.

Does not make its own hardware. While this means that there are many products of inferior quality, there are others with amazingly high quality. (just check out the VAIO Z)

Cons:

Known for its errors. The BSOD, while rare, still occaisionally will surface. On a personal note, I have only experienced the BSOD on Vista or earlier; I have never blue screened on Windows 7.

Also known for the abundance of viruses. If you're not torrenting a bunch of files and have a good antivirus, you're safe. If you're not a complete moron you probably will be able to get by without AV software.


Mac

Pros:
Sexy. That's the word for it. Apple is all about making good looking products. Their current line is no different, except maybe the ugly Mac Mini, which is basically just the "hey, I just met you. And this is crazy. But I'm a Mac. So program on me. (for iOS)"

Well, that's about it. Apple products are sold based on their features like that. Thin, light, aluminum. That's awesome.

Cons:
Closed up. Apple's open source "based on unix" stuff is a bunch of garbage. As shown with
Flashback, a virus that infects based on a java vulnerability, Oracle released an update for PCs, but Apple, who releases their own version of the Java VM, left the security hole open for weeks.

Makes decisions to "enhance the user experience" that many users may find annoying. Now, before I go and say that Apple should have put Flash on the iPad I will say that it is true that Flash does use battery faster than normal. At the same time  it leaves out much of the web and Apples own iAd service has been shown to reduce the battery life in ad-supported lite versions versus the ad-free paid versions of apps.


My verdict:
I am typing this on my iPad and am not really in the mood to list everything, so I'll just sum it up in a tl;dr version.

Are you:

On the go? Get a MacBook Air or the 13" pro. You can install Windows on it, they look good, are portable, and have build quality that will last through travel.

A programmer? If on the go, refer to the first. Get a Mac Mini, and dual or tri-boot (OSX and Windows, OSX Windows and Ubuntu) and maybe use the money saved of buying a full Mac to buy a cheaper PC. Decent ones can be gotten in the 600 dollar range, combined with the mini are on par with the base 13" pro or the first usable (read: not crying for more RAM/SSD) air.

A gamer? unless you really need a laptop, dedicate all your budget into a good, custom, windows desktop. If you need something to take notes on the go then just grab a netbook for cheap, or if you have the money, an iPad.

Someone who only needs their computer to do basic tasks, ie checking emails, Facebook, etc.?
iPad. They are pretty cheap, functional, and not lame build quality like a netbook. As of right now, Apple pretty much dominates the tablet market by creating not-lame hardware that runs a tested OS. Android, on the other hand, has lame producers making 100 dollar tablets that are thick, flimsy, and barely even functional running a stripped-down version of Android that can't really use all of its features.


Wow that's my second rant post in two days. I'm out, and don't troll my spelling!

I like your verdict, although I don't agree with the part about Apple being closed up 

Let's put it this way, Apple's business practices are closed up, but a lot of their software isn't.

For example, I can't think of even one Microsoft program that is open-source. I can however, list a few Apple applications that are open-source.

I especially agree with you about Android tablets. Unless you buy an Android tablet that costs the same as, or more than an iPad, you're going to have a very bad experience. And there is no other tablet on the market today that has a retina display 

Veggie, didn't we have a topic for Operating system discussions/debates? I'm going to dig it up again 

The reason the iPad is the only tablet to have a retina display is because Apple created it, its just a name for a high definition screen.

Well, no other tablet has a "high definition screen" either so there 

For the record, the iPad 3 has 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi).