PDA

View Full Version : Mac guys are so easily wound up!



Harrison
1st February 2007, 02:03
This guy I work with has just got another job working at a new Apple store that is about to open on Southampton very soon. He is currently being trained ready to work in the store.

This evening he mentioned how great the Mac is, and so I replied saying they were rubbish. ;) You should have seen the horror on his face that someone was putting down the beloved Mac.

The funny thing was that everything he them went on to add into the argument was complete rubbish. I stated the fact that all Intel Macs are basically now just Apple designed PCs running OS X instead of Windows. He wouldn't accept that and tried to argue some strange idea he had that Apple have been using Intel chips for 7 years :blink: When challenged about this he then retracted it slightly by saying they had been developing Intel systems for 7 years. Something I find hard to believe.

He also was under the illusion that Windows is rubbish and he would never touch it because you would get a virus within minutes of connecting to the internet. I enjoyed pointing out that the lack of virii on the Mac was due to it being a platform of limited importance globally and so the hackers and virus creators were not interested in wasting their time with it. ;)

I then challenged him over the availability of games on the Mac. He had some strange idea that all the best games were released on the Mac soon after the PC. I seriously think this guy hasn't actually seen the PC market and is just being fed this from his Apple training. I went on to point out that less than 1% of games released on the PC ever got ported to the Mac. He replied by saying, who would want to play all the crap games on the PC such as puzzle games anyway. Again no idea what he was talking about.

Next I mentioned emulation just to see if he would be truly stumped. He did reply saying he had "a great SNES emulator for his Mac which played all the great games." What about emulators for all the other platforms? I asked. His reply was :huh::unsure: yeah, you can get those too... (no clue).

He then added the iPod element to the argument, which I quickly pointed out wasn't actually anything to do with the Mac, but was a completely separate consumer electronics device made by Apple that interfaced with a Mac for data transfer, nothing more. I also pointed out how restricted it was as standard, only allowing the user access via Apple's own iTunes which was also rubbish. Plus songs downloaded from Apple could not be played on any other device. Something he didn't seem to realise or understand.

He then finished the argument by mentioning the Windows Vista is a load of rubbish and that OS X 10.5 is far superior. Umm... he obviously hasn't actually seen Vista running properly has he.

Mac fans. Why? Personally I think they are just scared of the unknown and want to remain in the kid gloves environment called OS X.

This "conversation" proved one thing. If this guy is an average Mac fan you can see what the problem is.

Submeg
1st February 2007, 02:32
:smashfreak: The only cure for Mac people

Stephen Coates
1st February 2007, 20:01
I still don;t get how alot of mac fans refuse to believe that new macs are just PCs.

Yes, they are still designed by Apple rather than a big PC manufacturer like Dell, but they are still PCs.

Regarding the comment about apple using Intel processors for years, that is slightly true, because for some old 68k/powerPC macs (along time ago), you could get 486 (and Pentium I think) cards for them to run Windows/MSDOS.

As for Vista, he has a point. Maybe there is a lot of stuff in Vista that he doesn't like? I am still yet to use Vista and Leopard but from what I have heard of both Vista and Leopard, I would say Leopard is better. When it comes to XP and Tiger though, Tiger is quite nice out of the box, but XP can be made quite nice with enough modification. If there is something I am not bothered about in an OS, it is a snazzy interface. I prefer something that is more usable and basic.

AlexJ
1st February 2007, 20:15
If there is something I am not bothered about in an OS, it is a snazzy interface. I prefer something that is more usable and basic.

I'm with you on this - my XP runs with the Classic look rather than Luna, and chances are I'd do the same with Vista.

Submeg
1st February 2007, 21:32
Yea, more useful features, not just wasted time on graphics...just takes up more of my hd

J T
1st February 2007, 21:52
My bosses are both into Mac quite a bit.

I don't really want to argue the merits of operating systems/platformswith them, being a doctor and a professor as they are. Now, I'm not a stupid person - but you know that feeling when you are a little out of your depth in a battle of intellect (especially over a trivial matter)......

But anyway, yeah, the Mac thing is growing on me a little bit, but I do prefer PCs. Maybe it's a familiarity thing as I've used windows based PCs for so long now.

Stephen Coates
1st February 2007, 23:30
I actually quite like Luna and prefer it to the other Windows XP themes. I would normally choose the Classic one though. Although at the moment I am currently using Windows 2000 and therefore don;t have any choice.


But anyway, yeah, the Mac thing is growing on me a little bit, but I do prefer PCs. Maybe it's a familiarity thing as I've used windows based PCs for so long now.

Probably. I'm not usually that bothered which system I use. I like both, probably because I grew up using three different systems so am very familier with all three (Macintosh, Amiga, Windows).

Harrison
2nd February 2007, 01:25
Have you heard the rumours going around at the moment that Apple may be considering releasing OS X mainstream so that it will run on all PCs, not just Macs. So much like Windows, you will be able to buy a boxed copy of the OS and install it on your PC.

At the moment Apple don't make money on their OS. They make money on their hardware sales. If they were to open up the ability to install OS X on non Macs, how would this affect their profits? Would people still buy Apple hardware? Or would they just buy the OS and install it on a cheaper and easier to upgrade PC?

I think if Apple do this it could be very risky as on the one hand it could suddenly increase the OS X user base expedentially over night, but equally it could all go wrong and Apple could lose a fortune in lost hardware sales.

Submeg
2nd February 2007, 10:32
But hey, apple would really just be in the same position as they are now if it didnt work right? Lots of people thinking that Apple is inferior, and others that buy it cause they are brainwashed. :thumbs:

Stephen Coates
2nd February 2007, 22:06
I find it highly unlikely that Apple will make OSX avaliable to run on anything.

Harrison
3rd February 2007, 11:36
But only a couple of years ago people were also saying it was highly unlikely Apple would ever make OS X run on an Intel compatible processor!

J T
3rd February 2007, 12:59
I find it highly unlikely that Apple will make OSX ....able to run on anything.

Tee-hee :ninja:

Stephen Coates
4th February 2007, 13:24
This evening he mentioned how great the Mac is, and so I replied saying they were rubbish. You should have seen the horror on his face that someone was putting down the beloved Mac.


Maybe he was just practising what he needed to say at work? :lol:

After all, it would be pointless for Apple if there were Apple stores that were full of people saying that Macs are crap.

Harrison
5th February 2007, 02:22
True, but that wasn't really the point. The laughable thing was how little he know that was true. Saying things like "all the games get released on the Mac shortly after the PC" is completely wrong for one, or that anyone using a PC would catch a virus within minutes of logging onto the internet.

Granted Macs have always looked nice and their OS has always had a smooth and polished feel to it, but it is all aesthetic polish. Apple are good at one thing. Product design!

At the end of the day OS X and Windows can do every task equally as well when it comes down to it. But I want a system that is capable of running the majority of software available, along with the best selection of games and emulators, and the Mac just cannot deliver on this. And the argument that you can now run Windows on an Intel Mac may be all well and good, but if I'm running Windows so that I can use most of the software anyway, who do I need to pay more for the Mac hardware to do exactly the same thing as I could on a more powerful PC I could build myself for half the price!

Stephen Coates
5th February 2007, 10:45
I totally agree about running Windows on the Intel Macs. I think that is mostly aimed at those who need to run OSX as well or who just prefer an Apple computer and an MS operating system.

If I wanted a ready built PC to run Windows I would just go to Dell or similar and only go to Apple if I wanted a Mac.

Although I do still prefer Apple laptops to most PCs. (I've had my PowerBook G3 just a cuple of days now and it is very nice :))