The Mac Is Perfect - Almost

By thomas - Posted on January 23rd, 2008

Born Again

Having a discussion with a Mac advocate is similar to being cornered by a born-again Christian: All your faults will be exposed and only conversion can save you.
Similarly to religion, only blind faith can keep the Mac’s cool fabric together as the magic collapses at the slightest glimpse of logic.

The Eye in the sky

Apple acts as God within their community: there is one thing everyone should know: the Mac works and it is easy to use. It is more a dogma than reality, but no mortal should ever question this. Any proof of the contrary is nothing but blasphemy and will not be tolerated by a company that sells products solely based on their image and tales of success.

A good look at it

I am old enough to have owned a Mac+, which could essentially do less than an Atari ST but for much more money, and I was among the lucky ones to see the Mac II and it’s wonderful, for the time, graphical capabilities unveiled. I’ve gotten older, but one thing is sure: 20 years later, Mac users still love to talk about their mac. Some Apple owners are convinced they belong to an elite of independant thinkers. My experience is that most have a lifetime membership at the influenceable non tech-savy party. Computers are merely tools, like toasters, we use to accomplish a task: they’re not badges of status. My toaster is made by GE, is it cool? do I belong? do this sound ridiculous? can I bring it to Starbucks now?

If I give it a disillusioned look, the Mac is simply made from average hardware, sold for twice the price, but bundled with a very complete, home user oriented, tool suite. So, when you are buying a Mac, Apple is really selling you a so-so computer with excellent software.

One big success

To its credit, Apple has succeeded at bringing Linux to the desktop. A long time dream for many! Yes it is not running Gnome or KDE, but it’s a good thing in my opinion. The Mac interface is very well designed and quite intuitive. As a technical person, I find it pretty frustrating, but, to most of its users, the Mac is more a home appliance made to write emails and browse the web. Sure, the ads show it has software to sort the pictures no one cares about and you can make movies for the grandparents, but sort of a few professional niches, it is a system designed for people that don’t really need a computer and will use one for mundane tasks.

Reality settles

The real problem I see is with Apple itself: Most of the appeal and advertisement propaganda is based on the ease of use and the expected plug’n’play. The stark reality is that the Mac is still a computer and not a magic box and a lot of things have issues; some devices not recognized, it is not as secure as claimed, some tools are crippled or broken. Quality is not that good; and customer service is less than perfect; meanwhile Apple will go great length to shut people up: They will either censor your posts or give sudden attention to your problem when it becomes too public.

Just another corporation

I find the use of censorship, on Apple’s forums, disgusting; Even Microsoft, while considered the cradle of Evil by many, hasn’t sunk that low. Not only Apple censors what could taint its image, but it will not contact users to provide solutions either. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, but rather a systematic approach to hide the truth from potential customers. Of course, they also managed to get many people to believe that the iPod could only play songs bought from iTune.

By treating customers like uneducated cattle, they managed to keep the truth from coming out. Sure, this is only a few lies compared to professionals of the field, but maybe if the day comes again, hopefully there’s not going to be anyone to save them a second time.

thomas's blog • Add new comment

dede

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 06:55.

Broadly drawn stereotypes are so much fun

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 19:05.

Next, how about you write about All Blacks, or perhaps Jews, or Americans, or some other collection of millions of different people, all conveniently shoehorned into a neatly dismissed rant of generalization that rarely even touches on accuracy.

FYI, you are also wrong to say that "Apple has succeeded at bringing Linux to the desktop," because Mac OS X isn't Linux. It uses an open source kernel based on Mach and BSD. Sure it can compile most software targeted for Linux, but it shares none of the Linux architecture and is really an alternative to Linux rather than a method of bringing Linux into a market it is currently failing in.

And when you make comments like "they also managed to get many people to believe that the iPod could only play songs bought from iTune. By treating customers like uneducated cattle, they managed to keep the truth from coming out, " it just makes you sound uninformed, sensationalist, and stupid.

The success of the iPod and iTunes was quite obviously based on Apple's support of open audio formats such as MP3 and AAC, and the tools it provided for ripping CDs. Did you miss the "Rip Mix Burn" posters that accompanied the iTunes rollout? Are you just trolling? Seriously, this article just makes you sound like a moron through every paragraph. It says nothing interesting and just reveals an emotionalist, frustrated whine that your picture suggests is inappropriate for your age.

"how about you write about

Submitted by thomas on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 00:50.

"how about you write about All Blacks, or perhaps Jews, or Americans, or some other collection of millions of different people"

Sure, nothing's taboo if there's a point of view to share.

About Linux and OS X, I realize they are different systems but I believe (and could be wrong) that Linux will not succeed on the desktop; this makes the Mac the de-facto alternative to Windows for home users. Linux apps can easily be ported, which even straightens the position; To me, the Mac has similar roots but a real user interface (vs. Gnome/KDE).

When it comes to the iPod and 'customer education', I base this on what I have personally seen. I have met people that believed Bill Gates invented the internet! And I have also met some that truly did not know they could rip their own CDs and many other. A vast majority of customers don't care about technology; nothing wrong with that, but they seem to lean toward the Apple side.

What I find very interesting about this topic is how much offense Mac owners take when Apple products are criticized; Yet, I haven't heard much else but the claim it is better designed or has more stuff pre-installed. I am awaiting for any proof it is better at.. something. Besides looking good and having a dedicated fan base, what can it exactly do that others do not? (with more options and for cheaper)

so.. im guessin ur a mac

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 13:42.

so.. im guessin ur a mac user then right? hahaha.. i own a mac but i dont show it off or try to convert people. its just a computer.. who cares.

JJ knows best

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 06:01.

Hier, JJ Abrams auf der letzten TED Konferenz. sagt alles:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/205

The Cult of Mac

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 04:23.

arghh… ich bin ein wiedergeborener christ, wie dubya. Ich habe es immer geahnt, meine kritiklose begeisterung für jedes neue Produkt dass Steve hochhält damit ich es bei den keynotes knipsen kann ist nur produkt meiner verdrängten hochreligiösität…
Mal sehen ob ich jetzt den Captcha-test schaffe!
;))

thorsten

Your way off!

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 19:29.

"the Mac is simply made from average hardware, sold for twice the price"

Have you lost your mind? The mac uses the same hardware as everyone else, a core2duo is a core2duo whether in a mac or a dell, except that more often than not the mac will be better designed. When the mac pro was launched it was cheaper than the equivalent dell and was better designed, apple have been ahead of the game in introducing many of intels new chips, first to market alot of the time. Pick an apple computer, and then spec a dell to the same specs, is it twice the price? get a grip my friend.

"it is a system designed for people that don’t really need a computer and will use one for mundane tasks"

Really? that's why it ships with development tools like "ruby on rails" and much more I suppose. Out of the box it is a far more productive machine than any PC for anyone wanting to do serious development work. Do you research your posts before you write them?

It's simple, superior design, superior operating system, equal in price, ship with development tools windows users will spend hours searching for and downloading, no malware or virus (so far). It is the computer for people who want to get things done.

On the other hand if you're a gamer you can trick out a PC with a graphics card that costs as much or more than a good console and have that warm feeling that you can game on your PC, or you can buy a Mac do some work and buy an Xbox360 or PS3.

Come on do a little research!

What is the Mac? a computer or a software suite?

Submitted by thomas on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 05:05.

Let me address your points:

"The Mac uses the same hardware as everyone else, a core2duo is a core2duo whether in a Mac or a dell, except that more often than not the Mac will be better designed"
Until very recently the Macs did not enjoy high memory bandwidth; while the improvements have been significant, it took years to get there. With current processors, hundreds of cycles are lost on cache misses and this makes CPU only comparisons meaningless when it comes to overall performance. Also, one can question the choice of video card as well. If we keep looking at the hardware, there are, obviously, (too) many variations on PCs; most motherboards, and video cards, are mere copies of the reference designs, but this is not always the case. Your statement implies that Apple has better designs than most of these companies' products (some being driven by cost, some by performance). Could you tell me when, during the past few years, Apple came with a superior architecture design? (Short of the new Mac Pro that seems promising). We can also look at quality: http://www.forbrug.dk/presse/nyheder/pressekit/ibookg4/pressefoto/. PCs are not better (I'm part of a class action against HP regarding their shoddy build quality); But, at least, you can get parts from many vendors. If my screen fails, I have choice; do you?

"Pick an apple computer, and then spec a dell to the same specs, is it twice the price?"
So, I went on the web, and found that getting a 2.4 GHz core2duo iMac with 2 GB, etc is roughly $1.5k. In the meantime, you can get an HP PC with more ram and a 2.4 GHz quad core for about $900... I did not spend much time to look at details but any web search turns up pretty flagrant results.

"it ships with development tools like 'ruby on rails' [...] Out of the box it is a far more productive machine than any PC for anyone wanting to do serious development work?"
First, ruby's only a 20mb download. I also assume you'd have to download and install XCode or gcc if you want to do anything 'serious'. Given the cost of developing most project, setup is usually negligible and I've never seen any business that cares about what's installed (or not) on a fresh machine (and I've been doing development for over 17 years). If you're talking about toy/home projects, etc this is a different story and the Mac is possibly well suited.

"It's simple, superior design, superior operating system, equal in price, ship with development tools windows users will spend hours searching for and downloading, no malware or virus (so far)."
I do agree that the Mac has a solid and intuitive GUI. There is no point arguing that, it is the strongest quality of the system. In my opinion, and I might get flamed for that, Gnome and KDE totally suck, while Windows has its pros and cons. However I have to dispel a myth regarding tools: Windows has the most software of any OS; it is certainly not difficult to find / install anything at all. I am also a Linux user and this is also true, although more problematic in some areas. Can you think of any software that is difficult to find on windows? I mean any type, from development to games. We had someone here that candidly asked (she has a Mac and obviously believes the ads) if it is possible to make web sites on PCs! Come on, how ridiculous is that! Besides the most common solutions for developing / running web sites are open source and run on all platforms.

"It is the computer for people who want to get things done."
To get what done? Certainly not games, nor any niche applications. The rest: any OS will do. Yes, the Mac is preloaded with some apps and people that don't have specific needs find that convenient; you can also buy cell phones preloaded with ring tones, that doesn't make them better.

What seems totally vague to me is the notion of what the Mac really is; At the end, it's getting more and more like a PC hardware with a different OS (and even there, I'd venture to say it's really a different GUI) and what people hold in respect is really a cool looking case with a nice software package. I ran the Mac OS on VMware; we're talking software here, not computers (as in 'hardware').

so when do you get to addressing them?

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 07:16.

"So, I went on the web, and found that getting a 2.4 GHz core2duo iMac with 2 GB, etc is roughly $1.5k. In the meantime, you can get an HP PC with more ram and a 2.4 GHz quad core for about $900... I did not spend much time to look at details but any web search turns up pretty flagrant results."

Eh, yeh, now how about comparing like with like, the imac is an all in one machine, compare an all in one from any manufacturer with the imac and tell me which comes out on top price/specs wise, now do the same with the mac pro.

Lets see, first you argue that the mac is only for those that want to perform mundane tasks, then when I point out it ships with many developer tools, you argue that they can be downloaded for windows and linux. So what, my point stands, out of the box the mac is far more productive making your notion of it only being for mundane tasks a nonsense.

Of course you really show your knowledge with your final statement "At the end, it's getting more and more like a PC hardware with a different OS (and even there, I'd venture to say it's really a different GUI)" are you really suggesting that OSX is windows with a different gui? OSX is UNIX certified! it is UNIX far far from windows with a different gui.

So essentially your argument boils down to, a PC is better at games! I think I addressed that too!

I still fail to understand

Submitted by sibylle on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 13:07.

I still fail to understand the arguemnt about productivity out of the box; I have never seen a scenario where bundled software was given any value / consideration in a development environment. It is an argument I have heard many times regarding the Mac, but I totally fail to see the value of bundled software (but for mundane tasks /users), considering software is available all over. To me, it is not different than saying this car is better because it has a tank full of gas, so it has a better range straight out of the showroom. If software was hard to come by, yes, I would understand.I am not suggesting that OSX is windows with a different GUI. I am trying to find out what defines the Mac: software or hardware? Because the hardware has become very generic, like a PC and they're getting more and more like PCs. CPUs are now the same, devices are the same, video is the same, etc. So the Mac is more and more a generic computer.Then, the software: if I run OSX on VMWare, do I have a Mac then? because it is the whole Mac experience, just on different hardware.My point is that now that hardware has nothing special, the Mac is mostly software; And while it used to be entierely unique (back 15 years ago), now it is aligning with Unix in structure, leaving the GUI as the truly unique part.As a side note, the association PC=Windows is wrong, many PCs are running other OS, so I do not mean Windows when I say PC.

Your points were shot down so you change them?

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 06:32.

I addressed a number of points in your article, you've failed to address any of my counter points.

Firstly you said:

"the Mac is simply made from average hardware, sold for twice the price"

The fact is that when comparing like for like the mac gives superior design for a lower price.

According to George Ou of ZDNET for example The Mac Pro is now the cheapest high-end workstation. He says:

"during my research I came to a stunning conclusion: it’s the cheapest name brand dual-processor workstation on the market, It’s not only cheaper than the slower $3817 Dell workstation I looked at earlier this month, but I can’t even build a cheaper generic PC clone unless I switched to a lower-end CPU."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=979

So tell me is the mac "average hardware, sold for twice the price"?

You still claim "it is a system designed for people that don’t really need a computer and will use one for mundane tasks"

Yet when it's pointed out that it comes pre-loaded with high end development tools straight out of the box you say that's of no value and still only suitable for mundane tasks /users. What mundane tasks will be performed with Apache 2.0 and PHP 5, Ruby, Python, or with the Ruby on Rails framework.

Is it more productive to have these technologies available when you first boot your machine or to spend hours downloading installing and configuring them.

Can you give me a reason why windows is more suitable for less mundane tasks, out of the box, than the mac is?

Linux is indeed an option, tried it, hated it. Too difficult to get simple things working, I know it has progressed but my time is valuable, so I can either build a more expensive workstation my self, spending hours building it and installing linux or I can just use a mac which uses the same stable secure unix foundation and has the same and indeed greater tools available to it. Windows is not even in the hunt.

"I am trying to find out what defines the Mac: software or hardware?"

Then why not ask that question instead of making baseless claims on price and suitability for getting work done?

I would say it's design and software. OSX firstly is the biggest difference for me, it is a far superior operating system to any of the alternatives, and while linux is improving it won't be a viable alternative for me until I can natively run the cs3 suite (photoshop, dreamweaver etc) and many other commercial applications. Windows is less productive because of the time spent maintaining it due to malware and virus and the useless registry which should be dropped in the next version of windows.

You need to use osx for a while to see just how much it improves productivity, yes on the surface it's an easy OS for joe average to get to grips with (is that a bad thing) but it also has so much under the hood for the more advanced user that there really isn't an alternative.

Yes the hardware is now becoming generic, but how it's implemented is not, if your happy with a dull beige box then fine, but I've worked on and continue to work on enough PCs to recognise good design when I see it, open a mac pro, it is not the jumble of cables that your average dell is, it is easy to get at, the way HD's and memory are mounted is really great for anyone who wants to have access to upgrades etc.

The imac is a stunning piece of design also and btw I'm still waiting for you to come back with an all in one system that's of equal spec and cheaper?

If you look at prices, most

Submitted by thomas on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 19:19.

If you look at prices, most quad core PCs can be found for about $1k (http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=10&name=Desktop...). I can’t think of a time in history when Apple represented a bargain: from the Apple 2 to the iPod, there’s cheaper and similar from the competition:

But let’s just take an example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834100025
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220255

           Apple           Asus
CPU        T7700           T7700
RAM        2GB (DDR2)      3GB (DDR2)
SCREEN     17"             17"
GFX        8600M GT        8600M GT
RES        1680x1050       1920x1200
HDD        160GB(5400rpm)  200GB(7200rpm)
WTY PART   1 YEAR          2 YEARS
WTY LABOR  3 MONTHS        2 YEARS
COST       $2794           $1999 (w/o $150 rebate)

And I just picked one randomly that seemed similar, there are probably better deals.

When it comes to tools, you’re make mention of Ruby, PHP, Apache, etc: I just did a test to prove a point:
I run this on a fresh virtual server:

#time yum install httpd php mysql php-mysql

this is the result:

real    0m37.060s
user    0m19.904s
sys 0m3.009s

(it installed Perl as a dependency too)
So, Apache, PHP, Mysql and Perl downloaded and installed in 37 seconds! this doesn’t prove much other than pre-installed common software means nothing as far as the value of the platform. That’s the point I was trying to make: it may look cool in an ad, but in the real world, who really cares if Apache is pre-installed or not?

As far as Linux goes, I think I am at odd with many Linux users; I’ve used it for a long time as a server and got to appreciate the flexibility; Now as a desktop machine, I totally hate it and, even with the progresses made, there are still too many issues and not enough good desktop tools to make it a good option.

I’ve never used Windows as a server but on the desktop it is quite solid, since Win2k. Sure there are plenty of viruses, etc but this is due to the market share. The same would happen to the Mac is it has a larger install base. In fact, the last year showed move vulnerabilities, which means it probably would have fared worse than Windows if virus / spyware writers had seen it as a good target. Yes, the registry seems like putting all the your eggs in the same basket, but a lot of things have been improved

Now, I have to agree on one thing: I should have asked about the Software vs. Hardware thing first; I think what puzzles me the most though is that I can’t understand why people are so attached to their Macs; I’ve had Apple products in my hands on and off since the Apple 2 and, besides the Mac II that was ahead of its time, I haven’t seen anything impressive but the consistency of the UI.
To top it off, I’ve been developing for 17 years and, so far, almost every Mac owner I met wasn’t much of a technical person, and didn’t have agruments other than “it’s cool” or “it’s well designed”; I’ve been working on both hardware and software designs, so I’m curious about what is cool or well done that none of these people could explain me.
You bring the access and cable routing; there are many combos that suck, but also many that do not; if you look at blade servers for example: they are designed with convenience in mind. you can probably swap memory / disks in them faster than most machines; a lot of desktop computers are not going to be serviced much so access is not a priority in design (especially considering the small percentage of people actually opening their computers). It is easier to change the spark plugs on a Civic than a Corvette, doesn’t mean the Civic’s a better car :)

If you can explain me the magic I’ve been missing all these years, I’ll be all ears; I’m really curious why no one has come up with technical arguments (architecture leading to better performance, extensions, or even from a software perspective). So far, I just see a higher price tag, a lot of fervor from the owners and the only arguments don’t seem to be based on fact that stand comparison

Years ago, I had a friend shopping for a new car; he got all excited when the salesman told him about the CD changer in the trunk (that was new back then). This really reminds me of this discussion; I can preinstall Apache on an eMachine PC, it’s still cheap crap, I can get a case that gives access to everything easily, it doesn’t change the machine’s functionality, etc. All these points are nothing; question really is: if I buy a Mac, what do I get that others can not offer?

Ok so I provide you an

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 04:30.

Ok so I provide you an example where apple is cheaper, for better hardware and you provide an example where apple is more expensive.

A little tip on apple hardware, when apple launches an update of specs, they are competitive or even cheaper than equivalent machines, over time when other machines drop in price the apple's don't, apple keeps the same price but upgrades the components, so the mac book pro will get an upgrade soon and will return to being competitive, the mac pro is a good example of this.

But read the reviews of the ASUS you listed, not all favourable are they, couldn't run existing software that some had, many going back to xp from vista.

So, tell me how much is your time worth? Now add to the cost you mentioned the cost involved in:

removing Vista and installing XP, buying antivirus software (and installing it)

Add the value of:

a webcam
video editing software (please don't compare windows movie maker to iMovie, iMovie was the first to support the new HD formats an is a far more capable program)
Photo editing software
multitrack recording
DVD authoring software

Also bear in mind resale value, if you want to measure total cost of ownership you also need to allow for resale, macs hold their value, other PC's do not.

you admit that as far as linux goes "as a desktop machine, I totally hate it and, even with the progresses made, there are still too many issues and not enough good desktop tools to make it a good option."

So this is a windows v osx discussion, OSX is far superior you have to admit that, and that is the main difference.

You made the statement that the mac was designed for people who didn't need a computer and would only use it for mundane tasks like e-mail.

Yet in production environments (think movie, publishing, music) it is the machine of choice.

I used the bundled software as an example of this, why this puzzles you I don't know, you've discounted linux on the desktop, so you tell me which is the more productive out of the box,

The Mac which come with all of those things I've mentioned or windows, which is barely capable of e-mail out of the box as you'll have to add antivirus software before you go online, cannot do any of the development work we've mentioned as the tools are not pre-loaded (and while I'll give you that a linux server will be able to add these things quickly I assure you desktop windows will not)

So you've kinda answered your own question ( which in you initial post you didn't really ask)

Linux is not good enough for the desktop.
Windows Vista is so bloated and slow that many users are downgrading to XP, despite it's rather poor security record.

With the mac we have superior design aesthetically at the very least, when purchasing the very latest hardware it is often cheaper than other leading manufacturers slower options (see zdnet article in previous post), it is more secure (you can say that's through obscurity if you wish, but how long has unix been the favoured choice in web servers etc, and how secure is it compared to windows, and lets remember OSX is essentially UNIX) and with the mac we have the best operating system currently available for desktop use. Does that answer your question?

tags in tagcloud

car solaris inconvenience Santa Monica support government sun Mac Evil Time Warner broken Linux

more tags

quick vote

which company is worse

time warner

37%

comcast

63%

Total votes: 27

Add new comment • Older polls

Events

«	Jul 2008					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31