Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: What makes a mac better?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: What makes a mac better?

 
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
| > you can run any software you want on a mac, including a lot of open
| > source software. macs use industry standard formats, such as mp3, aac,
| > mpeg, h.264, pdf, etc.
|
| You can't build your own Mac.

Lately I've seen a lot of articles along this line:

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/...ooks/240002204

The gist of it is that newer Mac products are coming
with the internals embedded in a lump of resin or glue,
with no upgradeable parts. But the people buying those
products just don't mind. It's not about computing. It's
about convenience, stability and successful advertising.

Apple customers I know have one or both of two motivations:

1) They don't want to deal with tech. and malware issues,
and they think they won't have to with a Mac. (For now, at
least, they're right. Apple is the new AOL. AOL was overpriced
and restrictive, but their website worked and they did a very
good job of shielding their customers from malware without
their customers needing to understand the details.)

2) The same simple projection that creates the art world:
"That thing is classy. If I can own it I'll be classy."

(Who but Steve Jobs could con people into thinking that
they can manifest as independent-minded non-conformists
through the act of buying a fashionable product that
millions of other people are buying? In fact, Apple products
have actually elevated to the level of "art" in the eyes of
many Apple followers.)

Ironically, many of the Mac people I know are running
Windows in a VM inside OSX, so that they can run their
Windows software. They're essentially paying 2-3 times
the cost of a PC, plus the cost of a Windows disk, for
malware protection and a very nice looking container.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:27:17 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."
>
>That's attacking the inanimate product, not a human "pimp".


A building with pews and an altar is not to be blamed for the presence
of religious cultists. A Mac is not to be blamed for attracting
cultists of the nospam sort. It is not the inanimate object that is
being ridiculed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
"Mayayana" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Apple is the new AOL. AOL was overpriced
>and restrictive, but their website worked and they did a very
>good job of shielding their customers from malware without
>their customers needing to understand the details.



I don't see that Apple and AOL they have anything in common. In fact
their philosophy seem to have been diametrically opposite.

Apple offers upmarket products for discerning individuals. AOL took
the internet, until then mostly the preserve of educated, intelligent
people, and took it firmly downmarket. In order to make it
universally accessible, they offered it to everyone, dumbing it down
in the process. Remember "Eternal September"?

Perhaps you were thinking of CompuServe, whose upmarket ethos was at
least partly comparable to Apple's. Eventually CompuServe's business
model was bypassed by the growth of other ISPs. In its dying days,
Compuserve was taken over by AOL which also seems to have died.

 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
On Aug 27, 10:00*am, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:27:17 -0700 (PDT), -hh
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."

>
> >That's attacking the inanimate product, not a human "pimp".

>
> A building with pews and an altar is not to be blamed for the presence
> of religious cultists. *A Mac is not to be blamed for attracting
> cultists of the nospam sort. *It is not the inanimate object that is
> being ridiculed.



You're engaging in a vastly generalized Ad Hominem attack ... and upon
what basis?

At best, it is an unstated _inference_ that this so-called "cultist"
is irrational. But you've not articulated why, such as that they were
a sucker for Steve Job's "Reality Distortion Field" marketing, or
someone who simply hates Bill Gates, or some other explanation.


But what's more disturbing is that when you claimed that the hardware
is separate and distinct from its consumer base, the implications are
that there was then logically no reason for you to have mentioned said
consumers whatsoever in the first place ... except to try to link them
toegher. And why would one even try to link them together if not to
'bash'?

Yup, you've created for yourself your very own "Catch-22" self-
contradiction.


Literary reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
In article <k1fsl3$42t$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Lately I've seen a lot of articles along this line:
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/byte/...ebooks/2400022
> 04
>
> The gist of it is that newer Mac products are coming
> with the internals embedded in a lump of resin or glue,
> with no upgradeable parts. But the people buying those
> products just don't mind. It's not about computing. It's
> about convenience, stability and successful advertising.


people buy computers to use and do work, not open them up. if they
break, they take them somewhere to be repaired.

how often do you open up your tv set? microwave oven? cellphone?

> Ironically, many of the Mac people I know are running
> Windows in a VM inside OSX, so that they can run their
> Windows software. They're essentially paying 2-3 times
> the cost of a PC, plus the cost of a Windows disk, for
> malware protection and a very nice looking container.


some do, but what you're missing is they can run mac *and* windows
software on the same machine (and unix software too). they have a much
wider choice, plus the convenience of having it all on the same
computer.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Yup, you've created for yourself your very own "Catch-22" self-
>contradiction.
>
>
>Literary reference:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22


Ah, a reference to one of my favorite books. So much a favorite, that
I keep an old paperback edition in the nightstand. It's one of those
rare books that one can plunge into at any place and read with joy and
laughter without updating oneself with the preceding chapters.

nospam may be closest to the character "Hungry Joe". Hungry Joe
claims to be a photographer, but his pictures never come out. Not
that nospam is being accused of taking photographs of the same subject
dear to Hungry Joe.

nospam has some Col Cargill characteristics. Cargill was a failed and
talent-devoid marketing executive before the war. Possibly a marketing
executive who proposed doing market surveys in the coach class of
commuter airlines.

"Catch-22" was published in 1961. When I bought my copy, I was fresh
out of grad school and taking the Chicago El to work at the "Chicago
Tribune". I would start laughing so hard that I had to put the book
down. Minutes later, just thinking about what I'd read, I'd start
laughing uncontrollably. People would move away from me thinking I
was demented. I'd laugh so hard that my cheeks would hurt; almost as
if they had been - like Orr's - stuffed with crabapples.

>But what's more disturbing is that when you claimed that the hardware
>is separate and distinct from its consumer base, the implications are
>that there was then logically no reason for you to have mentioned said
>consumers whatsoever in the first place ... except to try to link them
>toegher. And why would one even try to link them together if not to
>'bash'?


You really shouldn't try to be clever by citing literary references
unless you really understand the literary reference. Catch-22 has
nothing to with the linking of one thing to another arriving at a
logical conclusion. In fact, it takes the opposite position: that
two diametrically opposed positions (you can be grounded if you are
insane, but you can't be insane if you want to be grounded) are
inherently self-contradictory and therefore illogical.

I have not claimed that the hardware is "separate and distinct from
the consumer base" (for that statement is also inherently
self-contradictory) but that it possible to ridicule the user while
having respect for the hardware. And, for that matter, respect for
other users of the same hardware.

nospam would like to believe that because I ridicule his Mac-pimp
proclamations of the Grail-like qualities of the Mac, that I have some
bias or dislike of Macs and Mac users. That's not the case. My
distaste is only of nospam and any other dick-wavers that feel they
acquired some superiority in choosing a particular brand of hardware.













--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Yup, you've created for yourself your very own "Catch-22" self-
> >contradiction.

>
> ...
> You really shouldn't try to be clever by citing literary references
> unless you really understand the literary reference. *Catch-22 has
> nothing to with the linking of one thing to another arriving at a
> logical conclusion. *In fact, it takes the opposite position: *that
> two diametrically opposed positions (you can be grounded if you are
> insane, but you can't be insane if you want to be grounded) are
> inherently self-contradictory and therefore illogical.


Except that the problem with your approach is that it was a hardware
question, which is what made your volunteered statement on "mac pimps"
utterly irrelevant ... UNLESS it was your explicit intent to link it
to the hardware question. So while you claim one thing, your actions
say the opposite.


> I have not claimed that the hardware is "separate and distinct from
> the consumer base" (for that statement is also inherently
> self-contradictory) but that it possible to ridicule the user while
> having respect for the hardware. *And, for that matter, respect for
> other users of the same hardware.


"...respect for other users of the same hardware..."?

Sorry, but that's a revisionist addition and too late for you to try
to save face with. Particularly since you previously said:


"People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best"
at
everything; even things they have no personal experience with."

That's a broad statement, with no meaningful accomodation.

Even if you want to point to the "tend" as your excuse, it isn't clear
if this is referring to levels of evangelicalism or something else.
Particularly since this was several posts ago, this "new reveation"
simply looks too much like simple revisionistic backtracking to be
credible as the statement's original intent.


> nospam would like to believe that because I ridicule his Mac-pimp
> proclamations of the Grail-like qualities of the Mac, that I have some
> bias or dislike of Macs and Mac users. *That's not the case. *My
> distaste is only of nospam and any other dick-wavers that feel they
> acquired some superiority in choosing a particular brand of hardware.


A fair enough point ... if you followed-up on that statement with an
objective dissection of the various claims he has made.

But you have no follow-up with technical specifics.

All you have is a name-calling rant about pimps, evengelicals and
cultists ... not one damn bit of technical content on how/what/where/
why/when your opponent was shown to be wrong.

Sure, nospam may very well be an evengelical Mac pimp ... but you've
failed to show this to be the case, and your line of reasoning was
self-contradictory and Ad Hominem, which makes you non-credible. Fix
it to try to restore your credibility, or kindly STFU and stew in
silence.


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Yup, you've created for yourself your very own "Catch-22" self-
>> >contradiction.

>>
>> ...
>> You really shouldn't try to be clever by citing literary references
>> unless you really understand the literary reference. *Catch-22 has
>> nothing to with the linking of one thing to another arriving at a
>> logical conclusion. *In fact, it takes the opposite position: *that
>> two diametrically opposed positions (you can be grounded if you are
>> insane, but you can't be insane if you want to be grounded) are
>> inherently self-contradictory and therefore illogical.

>
>Except that the problem with your approach is that it was a hardware
>question, which is what made your volunteered statement on "mac pimps"
>utterly irrelevant


Are you new to this newsgroup?

>> I have not claimed that the hardware is "separate and distinct from
>> the consumer base" (for that statement is also inherently
>> self-contradictory) but that it possible to ridicule the user while
>> having respect for the hardware. *And, for that matter, respect for
>> other users of the same hardware.

>
>"...respect for other users of the same hardware..."?
>
>Sorry, but that's a revisionist addition and too late for you to try
>to save face with. Particularly since you previously said:
>
>
>"People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
>Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best"
>at
>everything; even things they have no personal experience with."
>
>That's a broad statement, with no meaningful accomodation.


Evidently, you have not followed other threads in this newsgroup. It
was a direct reference to another thread.

>Even if you want to point to the "tend" as your excuse, it isn't clear
>if this is referring to levels of evangelicalism or something else.
>Particularly since this was several posts ago, this "new reveation"
>simply looks too much like simple revisionistic backtracking to be
>credible as the statement's original intent.
>
>
>> nospam would like to believe that because I ridicule his Mac-pimp
>> proclamations of the Grail-like qualities of the Mac, that I have some
>> bias or dislike of Macs and Mac users. *That's not the case. *My
>> distaste is only of nospam and any other dick-wavers that feel they
>> acquired some superiority in choosing a particular brand of hardware.

>
>A fair enough point ... if you followed-up on that statement with an
>objective dissection of the various claims he has made.


Are you new to this newsgroup? That's been going on for a year or
more.

>But you have no follow-up with technical specifics.
>
>All you have is a name-calling rant about pimps, evengelicals and
>cultists ... not one damn bit of technical content on how/what/where/
>why/when your opponent was shown to be wrong.


Are you to this newsgroup? That's been going on for year or more.

>Sure, nospam may very well be an evengelical Mac pimp


Well, at least you've picked that up.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>, -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> But you have no follow-up with technical specifics.
>
> All you have is a name-calling rant about pimps, evengelicals and
> cultists ... not one damn bit of technical content on how/what/where/
> why/when your opponent was shown to be wrong.


that's all tony does. it's all ad hominem attacks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2012

| people buy computers to use and do work, not open them up. if they
| break, they take them somewhere to be repaired.
|
| how often do you open up your tv set? microwave oven? cellphone?
|

That's a Mac devotee's view. I've built all my own PCs
for years. And I upgrade them myself. Not everyone
wants to add a hard disk, but people often need to
add more memory... And laptop batteries can die. To
limit the life of the product to its weakest link is crazy.

If there were serviceable parts in my TV I'd work
on that, too. Why not? (I don't use the latter two
appliances.) I replaced a sparker in my stove burner
awhile back. By your logic I should have just bought
a new stove. (Or spent $300 for a GE "genius" to
replace the $12 part.) For me, repair-ability is a big
selling point.

There really isn't any such thing as a PC to begin with
anyway. There is a tin box with a dozen or so components
inside. These days it can be down to 5 or 6 components:
CPU, board, power supply, hard disk and DVD drive. OEMs
have created the PC as a defined item through marketing.
(Microsoft ran into that problem with their Product Activation
scam. They can't limit a Windows install to a single PC
because there's no such thing. So they claim that Windows
is licensed to the motherboard!)

| > Ironically, many of the Mac people I know are running
| > Windows in a VM inside OSX, so that they can run their
| > Windows software. They're essentially paying 2-3 times
| > the cost of a PC, plus the cost of a Windows disk, for
| > malware protection and a very nice looking container.
|
| some do, but what you're missing is they can run mac *and* windows
| software on the same machine (and unix software too). they have a much
| wider choice, plus the convenience of having it all on the same
| computer.

That's classic Apple devotee logic: "Why would I buy a
PC when I can spend $1,500 more for a Mac and a Windows
disk, and then run Windows on the Mac?" ...I wouldn't know
how to respond to such reasoning.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: What makes a mac better? ray Digital Photography 105 11-26-2012 01:02 PM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 0 08-27-2012 08:39 AM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 2 08-26-2012 09:05 PM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 0 08-26-2012 05:57 PM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 0 08-26-2012 05:57 PM



Advertisments