Parker'sSire on 10/2/2007 at 12:30
Quote Posted by Ulukai
What
is the correct collective term for dudes, anyway
A dissimulation?
A den?
A dule?
Uncia on 10/2/2007 at 12:42
That just made me very happy.
fett on 10/2/2007 at 16:10
Charlie Brooker says:
Quote:
Mac owners often sneer that kind of defence back at you when you mock their silly, posturing contraptions, because in doing so, you have inadvertently put your finger on the dark fear haunting their feeble, quivering soul - that in some sense, they are a superficial semi-person assembled from packaging; an infinitely sad, second-rate replicant who doesn't really know what they are doing here, but feels vaguely significant and creative each time they gaze at their sleek designer machine. And the more deftly constructed and wittily argued their defence, the more terrified and wounded they secretly are.
This is both amazingly sad and accurate.
TheAlbaniac on 10/2/2007 at 16:37
I don't know if it is. I can completely understand creative-minded computer users feeling a need to have a computer that seems to actually be designed with some sensibility. Plus, these users are often not as good with computers, and for them the 'fisher-price' approach is much better than being forced to tinker with the computer's innards and setup. I know that was one of my main reasons to switch.
I also think the article does exactly what it criticises; generalizing enormously with horrible stereotypes. I know a lot of the old mac users are very fanatical and have this elitist 'air' about them, but there's plenty of them (including me and probably David), who didn't switch to be cool.
As for my 'descent' into mac-fandom: I honestly feel that the mac is as advertised. Yeah, I don't care particularly for the whole 'you're cool if you use a mac' attitude (I don't have an iPod, for example, because cheaper devices serve my purposes just fine), but I find that in general, it does 'just work'.
Just a few days ago I stepped into an elevator at uni, and two older ladies (teachers) stepped in, talking about the difficulties of connecting their laptops to a beamer and getting an image. I had just had this same problem a week earlier, and the end result was that some of my classmates used my mac to display their powerpoint horrors. At some point in the conversation, one of them remarked that a solution would be to get a mac, since apparently they don't have this problem...
Ultimately, I think image might be just one (small) factor in the popularity of macs. In many ways, it's a situation similar to that of the gaming console. I, and many with me, stopped with pc gaming altogether, because it's just too much work. And so I bought an xbox and a gamecube, and I was happy.
Most people just care about getting their stuff done, and if a mac does this better and easier than a pc, it could be, and often is, a good reason to switch.
Image is fun, and I have to admit I love my shiny white mass-produced artsy mac, but in the end that's not why I switched. And just like with the xbox, I would gladly switch back to microsoft if they offered the same simplicity and ease...
Bottom-line: yes, they probably work on people's insecurities and wish to be cool (like any other succesful product), but they're largely right in their claims. And if all the pc side can do is moan about the faggy, artsy mac users, they don't make a very strong case.
Now, to get back on topic: I would really like to try Vista sometime. For those who have used it for a while, what would you say jumps out in the way of improvements or new features?
fett on 10/2/2007 at 17:04
My main problem with Mac is that I love to game on the PC -even though it is more difficult to set up than a console. I live in a house with 3 other people - 2 of them under the age of 6. Console gaming is absolutely an impossibility for me right now, plus I like the 'intimacy' of gaming on a PC monitor, the keyboard/mouse set-up, etc. The PC, I would argue is the 'ideal' setup for people who game to have some 'alone' time and unwind.
That being said, I simply can't play the games I want to on a Mac, and I can't really switch to a console. If games were released for Mac and PC simultaneously, I might consider switching. However, I think one of the main complexities of the PC is drivers, graphic cards, software configuration for different games, etc. People don't experience confusion or difficulty with those issues on a Mac, because they're not trying to game on one, at least to the level of most hardcore PC gamers.
David on 10/2/2007 at 17:21
Charlie Brooker isn't being serious, it's a sweeping generalisation in reaction to the sweeping generalisations in the latest set of Mac adverts. The adverts are very clever, and I would bet bottom dollar that Apple would have known what the reaction to them was going to be like.
I use a Mac because it does 'just work'. I know it gets bandied around a lot when talking about Macs but it is true. I've used a Mac every day for the last two years, both at work and at home, and I don't know what the Kernal Panic (BSoD-alike) screen looks like.
I also develop websites and applications for Windows, so I sit happily in the middle getting the best of both worlds and none of the '$PLATFORM IS THE BEST!' crap! \o/
Oh yeah, and Macs do have more than one mouse button and have done for a while now, Charlie :p
Back to Vista:
I've been using it for a week know as my Macbook is at the fruit stand after I sloshed a load of coke all over it like a clumsy tit. :erg:
For the most part it's good. The UI is not. Sadly the changes they've made to the Windows Explorer UI are a step in the wrong direction. Big fat giant steps too.
There are some confusing choices too. The 'My Computer' Explorer window that pops up when you press Window + E has a toolbar at the top that cannot be customised. One of the options included is "Map Network Drive". Now I can't think there are that many people who need to map a network drive so often that they cannot simply right-click and choose "Add Network Location" or choose "Map Network Drive" from the standard menu bar.
This brings me on to another thing. "Add Network Location" and "Map Network Drive" appear to perform pretty much the same function, yet the former uses a Vista Wizard and the latter uses the same UI that's been in Windows for ages. Why are there two different applications for doing the same thing, available from the same place?
Seriously, quite a lot of the UI in Vista is a backwards step.
Also UAC will drive you barmy and you will turn it off or you will want to kill yourself when it asks you (up to four times!) whether you are sure you want to delete that jpg from your desktop.
And it still gives you Administrator credentials by default.
Some of the tech improvements are great. Superfetch, for example, is wonderful. It analyses what applications you frequently start up when you log in and sticks them in memory so that when you do start them they appear pretty much instantly.
Hrm, that sounds like a lot of bitching and not a lot of good stuff. It's not really, it's just that most of it is the same as Windows XP, so it's not really worth noting.
jay pettitt on 10/2/2007 at 23:02
Quote Posted by Fingernail
Charlie Brooker for the win95 :D
fixed.
The Alchemist on 11/2/2007 at 00:23
The only thing I dont like about OSX is the shared toolbar. I dont know, it just doesn't feel right. It reduces the feeling that I'm able to multitask. Purely psychological probably but it's a strong one. I like my programs to contain their own contextual menus and toolbars. Other than that, I'd be running a Mac. Maybe if I took some time and forced myself I'd get used to it.
TheAlbaniac on 11/2/2007 at 21:32
Interestingly enough, that's an osx design choice that actually epitomizes much of the multitasking design philosophy.
First, it's a shared toolbar because many osx apps have 'floating' windows; unlike word for windows, for example, you can still see the desktop behind open documents, rather than the background of MS word. This, along with the fact that, by design, you (generally) can't properly maximize a window in osx, really encourages 'proper' multitasking. Many windows users completely maximize their window, which discourages multitasking (or at least for the less-experienced users). This approach took some getting used to for me, but I noticed that even I started to handle some things differently, switching faster between apps by just clicking the bits that appear under the currently open window (or the wonderful f9 'show all open programs on-screen) funtion. Now, this is coming from someone who usually has so many windows open that the task bar become unintelligible.
Secondly, perhaps the main reason for a unified toolbar at the topmost part of your screen is the concept of infinite space at the edges; menu item 'buttons' stretch upwards to infinity, making it easier and faster to click them.
Perhaps it also encourages programmers to design their menu's in the same way. For example, the 'options', or 'about' window is ALWAY under the first menu item. In windows it can be under 'file', but also under 'extra', or 'tools'. Secondly, scripts and services (system-wide spell-checking) are always under the first button.
Muzman on 12/2/2007 at 08:30
on the Mac aside; while no expert I really don't know where the 'macs are virtually crashless' thing comes from. I guess most folks don't do anything high end with them, but start trying to push them and they fall over just like a regular PC, often worse. I've seen mac systems crash routinely with heavy stuff like Final Cut, Premiere, Photoshop, After Effects, Combustion, Motion, 3d stuff. Really, few people I've known from that sort of field seem to think of Mac as anything more than a platform; you run it because it runs what you want to use and mac and windows are equally protectionist about trying to make crossing over difficult sometimes. Indeed, the more mac tries to open its platform and talk to more things, be more flexible, adaptable, expandable etc (ie; like a PC) , the more crash prone it becomes.
There is a really good argument against mac besides vapid fashionability, around here anyway; they cost too damn much to buy and they're too difficult and expensive to fix. Most mac home users I know are aware they did it for the style of it to some extent, had to reach a bit price wise and found them problematic to inadequate when it came to running hefty software. There's pros and cons obviously, but I've yet to see a clear winner is all I'm saying. Windows isn't as difficult and buggy as is often made out, and Macs aren't anywhere near as stable, powerful and intuitive as legend would have it.
