Mac vs. PC! Epic battle with some Aptera thrown in.

[Aptera #1159]

The battle has begun!:rolleyes:

Update: Unix can vote for either Mac or Linux.

[Aptera #1159]

I love all computers. I love my windows PC!:p People do not hate Apple, they hate the 'stupid' fans; don't deny yourself quality hardware and software because you hate the end user's attitude.

Lets take this argument to the lounge.:D

Microsoft and Apple are 100% different; Apples (pun intended) and err...oranges. They only compete in the OS development field. Apple makes hardware, the only hardware Microsoft makes are mice and keyboards. Aptera and Apple are very similar. Ballmer is still disgusting.

I know about computers, I don't "buy an Apple product since... It's an Apple."

I hate stereotypes that don't apply to me. Can't a guy love the structure of an OS and the beauty of a computer/product without being an idiot?

I contradict myself; I will stereotype. I do agree some Apple users are stupid. When it comes to computers, PC users tend to be mediocre. Mac users are split down the middle, some being really computer literate and some being really illiterate.

I used to hate Apple, but when I learned more about computers I began to love Apple. Apple has a great history.

[Aptera #1159]

I have 5 computers.


Windows Vista Desktop (built it myself), use it for games. Best for customizability. Easy to manipulate data, files, system. C++
Macbook Air. Love it. Always on it. Wifi card does not support passive packet injection. Bad for under-net.
iMac. Meh. Same as Macbook air.
Ubuntu Laptop. Modded a little. Tried Suse and Fedora. Stuck with Ubuntu. Best for Doing under-net stuff. Will bring to Defcon.:cool:
Old Windows XP computer. Gateway bulit it. Used to run ME. Would rather die than use ME. Reformatted, and upgraded RAM. Mom uses it. First Comp. Only 10 GB HDD. Fails miserably.

[n_dawg]

I have a MacBook, and my girlfriend has my Ubuntu desktop (her CPU died). I have a feeling I'll be running Ubuntu soon.

I've noticed a lot of similarities between the the Typ-1 and the Mac:


Both are white and shiny, with organic shapes
Both have no new technology within, they just combine existing technology in a better way
Both companies have CEOs named Steve, and begin with "Ap-"
Both have superior technology, but most people think they're "too different" or "just a toy," so they stick with the status quo
Both kick a stagnant industry in the ass, forcing them to do something new and better

[KarenRei]

I wouldn't call Apple superior tech. Most iProducts, when released, have had cheaper, more advanced competitors available at the time. They have superior marketting and slick interfaces, though.

Anyways, Apple's not the sort of company you really want to emulate. In contrast to the open, friendly sort of environ that dominates much of Silicon Valley, Apple is run in a rather authoritarian, workers-are-commidities type manner.

[G-Jet]

excellent n-dawg.

I hope they have "superior marketing and slick interfaces".

G

[appyfan]

The only thing a Mac can do is exactly what a PC can do, except make a statement while doing it.

Don't you guys remember the struggle that went on back in '96 when Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy? Then Steve came along and thought, "Hey guys I got a great idea; why don't we make all of our electronics super seductive both software and hardware wise and try to push all that stuff on the consumer?"

Sure enough it caught on. People were buying the stuff, because it made them feel good. It fed their egos. Now Apple is just getting greedy and taking advantage of people by riding on the "Be sophisticated. Buy a mac." ideal.

Karen, you're absolutley right. They don't just have good marketing... They have intensly-difficult-to-resist marketing which would make you look like an idiot if you chose to buy another competing product. Something like an "offer you can't refuse" situation. This is brainwashing in its purest form.

Apple is in the business of selling dreams. Wake up, and you'll realize it's just that.

[n_dawg]

Excluding the MacBook Air (which is its own thing)


Every Mac has DVI
Every Mac has automatic switching Gigabit Ethernet
Every Mac has FireWire
Every Mac has digital 5.1 optical audio in and out
Every Mac is multi-core
Every Mac is legacy free, both in terms of ports and firmware


Sure sounds like superior technology to me…

Apple is in the business of selling dreams. Wake up, and you'll realize it's just that.

Even if that were true, a little company called Disney is also in the business of selling dreams. How is this a bad thing exactly? Personally, I'd love a computer that works as well as the one in my dreams ;)


As Karen points out, Apple bucks the Silicon Valley trend towards transparency and high-quality employee relationships–yet it has worked out quite well for them. I'm as big a fan of transparency as anyone, but maybe this shows that it's not necessarily the best way to run a business.

[KarenRei]

As Karen points out, Apple bucks the Silicon Valley trend towards transparency and high-quality employee relationships–yet it has worked out quite well for them. I'm as big a fan of transparency as anyone, but maybe this shows that it's not necessarily the best way to run a business.

The biggest success in silicon valley is Google, which is the epitome of transparency and employee-friendliness. Their employees, for example, have cafeteria meals made custom from professional chefs, they can spend 20% of their work time on their own personal projects, and so on.

As for technology, there's absolutely nothing unusual about any of those things (except for legacy, which is a problem with Windows, not the hardware) for PC users (I'm a Linux user). On the other hand, Apple has pumped out one inferior product after another. Didn't you hear about the scandal with their most recent 20" flat screen? They repeatedly tried (with clever marketting) to hide the fact that it only supports 18 bit color (with poor contrast to boot). 18 bit color?! I haven't seen a screen with that low color depth on a computer since the late 90s. The iPhone has a poor, way overpriced connection, a battery that's soldered in place so you have to send it back to be replaced with an $80 service fee, won't allow native apps to be run, etc. When the iPod came out, it was widely ridiculed as an upcoming flop due to having far less storage space and a notably higher price than a number of its competitors (little did they know about the power of advertising). And on, and on, and on.

[G-Jet]

I hate when my MAC works 100% of the time. Hate it too that any new peripheral/software is configured in 3 easy clicks (sometimes less, sometimes more). Hate the simple and intuitive user interface.
:)

and what is "sautered"?
:D

[futura]

The biggest success in silicon valley is Google, which is the epitome of transparency and employee-friendliness.

Uhh, I think the biggest success in Silicon Valley is Intel. Both in terms of market cap, PE ratio, worldwide acceptance and longevity. They've managed to dominate the chip business through three significant technology cycles and changes in management style. Not exactly a "transparent" company either.
I use Windows, OSX and Linux.
Cheers.

[KarenRei]

I should have clarified, "in recent years". Google's rise has been nothing less than meteoric, transforming from two guys with a server in a friend's garage in 1998 to a company with ~20,000 employees, the largest non-Dow Jones indexed company with ~4B in profit and ~17B in income just nine years later. It took Intel 40 years to get to where they are now. But I should have been more clear.

[appyfan]

One thing I've noticed is that people who use Macs don't seem to be really tech savvy which is why Apple makes sure all their computers can do things within "3 clicks". Most graphic artists don't have a science degree so in part they have products which reflect that.

Also, complicated products aren't a big seller and this is part of the reason why Macs are so popular. Even a monkey can use them. Maybe their not selling dreams but instead in the business of selling computers to dummies?

Whoops...:o


Anyway, have we really become that lazy/mentally limited where even operating a mouse and fine tuning some personal settings with regards to battery life on a lap top have become a burdernsom chore?

There are several other computers as well as media storage devices which offer the same or better performance for far less. Talking about mouse clicks, the Macbook Air is a complete waste of mouse clicking let alone cash reserves. Why would I want to buy a computer when I need another one to install programs onto it? That's like going back in time... Has the Macbook Air even become a big hit? I see everywhere that they claim its the thinnest laptop computer in the world... If anyone can prove this to me, that it is in fact the thinnest lap top in the world, I will personally step off my soap box and say "I stand to be corrected.".

Until then, they're just decieving the public.

[3-4-me]

Interesting discussion.
I've been a diehard PC user for longer than I care to remember. I put up with the viruses, patches, driver searches, etc. long enough.
My Toshiba laptop just died on me last week (A/C port broke on the motherboard).
I reluctantly bought a MacBook Pro on Sat. I figured it was going to be pretty rough to get used to.
All I can say is wow. What a nice machine. It seem like someone was actually thinking about what they were doing when they designed it.:p
So if not wanting to constantly tweak on my system to be able to use it makes me a monkey, then pass the bananas.:D

[KarenRei]

And you know that operating system, "OSX"? That's "X" as in X Windows - what we Linux users have been using for ages. ;) You finally now support it. And use a unix kernel, "XNU".

[Aptera #1159]

And you know that operating system, "OSX"? That "X" is X Windows - what we Linux users have been using for ages. ;)

It also means "10."

[KarenRei]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

"Mac OS X was a radical departure from previous Macintosh operating systems; its underlying code base is completely different from previous versions. Its core is a Unix-like operating system (OS) built on top of the XNU kernel, with standard Unix facilities available from the command line interface (Apple released this core as a free and open source operating system named Darwin). Over this core, Apple layered a number of components, including the Aqua interface and the Finder, to complete the GUI-based operating system which is Mac OS X."

and...

"Since Mac OS X is based on UNIX, most software packages written for BSD or Linux can be recompiled to run on it. Projects such as Fink, MacPorts and pkgsrc provide pre-compiled or pre-formatted packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included X11.app, Apple's version of the X Window System graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation.[13] Up to and including Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger), Apple's implementation was based on the X11 Licensed XFree86 4.3 and X11R6.6. All bundled versions of X11 feature a window manager which is similar to the Mac OS X look-and-feel and has fairly good integration with Mac OS X, also using the native Quartz rendering system. Earlier versions of Mac OS X (in which X11 has not been bundled) can also run X11 applications using XDarwin."

Apple is finally catching up to Unix ;) Windows, they'll come our way eventually.

(I was thinking X was standard; apparently, it's only optional. But you're still Unix-based)

[Chupacabra]

Mac, PC, Linux, Unix, I don't really care...

Although I grew up on Apples, the majority of jobs out there are PC/Unix/Linux based so that's what I'm into. If Apple had been the dominant market share I'd wager I'd be using them instead.

[n_dawg]

The biggest success in silicon valley is Google, which is the epitome of transparency and employee-friendliness. Their employees, for example, have cafeteria meals made custom from professional chefs, they can spend 20% of their work time on their own personal projects, and so on.

Of course you can point to successful companies that are transparent, that's not my point. My point is that Apple, a successful company, is the opposite of transparent. This brings into question the idea that transparency is a good thing in every case.

One of my friends worked for Google. The environment you describe is long dead.


As for technology, there's absolutely nothing unusual about any of those things (except for legacy, which is a problem with Windows, not the hardware) for PC users (I'm a Linux user).

Really? Name another computer hardware manufacturer that has those features on all their computers (save one, since I excluded the Macbook Air). Secondly, of course you can have legacy hardware (PS/2, Serial, Parallel, Joystick, ISA, PATA, etc).

Besides, my point was in comparison with the Aptera. In-car computers, solar panels, series drivetrains, composite bodies, etc aren't new technology. It's putting them together into a compelling package that's the trick.

And congrats. What distro do you run? :)


On the other hand, Apple has pumped out one inferior product after another. Didn't you hear about the scandal with their most recent 20" flat screen? They repeatedly tried (with clever marketting) to hide the fact that it only supports 18 bit color (with poor contrast to boot). 18 bit color?! I haven't seen a screen with that low color depth on a computer since the late 90s.

A good point. I've never liked Apple's monitors, though in the past they were supposedly top notch. Currently it makes more sense to get a Dell flatpanel.


The iPhone has a poor, way overpriced connection, a battery that's soldered in place so you have to send it back to be replaced with an $80 service fee, won't allow native apps to be run, etc.

And yet it's selling like hotcakes. (the native apps thing is fixed, btw) The things geeks value are not necessarily the things the average consumer values. The problem is that geeks are blinded by their own competence. Stay with me. Geeks easily learn how to use most of the features on their devices, so they assume that everyone has that capacity. I used to be of the same mind, but after reading Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things (http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0465067107), I can't help but notice the abysmal design of products in general and cell-phones in particular. The handset industry needed a kick in the butt, and I'm glad Apple stepped up to the plate.


When the iPod came out, it was widely ridiculed as an upcoming flop due to having far less storage space and a notably higher price than a number of its competitors (little did they know about the power of advertising). And on, and on, and on.

The iPod was also the first DAP to use FireWire for transfers. It was the first hard-drive player to fit in your pocket. It had decent battery life. It had the first interface designed to listen to your music, not manage it (that's what the computer was for). Today we bask in a sea of iPod killers, so we forget how bad it truly was back then.

Also, complicated products aren't a big seller and this is part of the reason why Macs are so popular. Even a monkey can use them. Maybe their not selling dreams but instead in the business of selling computers to dummies?

Whoops...:o


Anyway, have we really become that lazy/mentally limited where even operating a mouse and fine tuning some personal settings with regards to battery life on a lap top have become a burdernsom chore?

If it's getting in the way of what I want to get done, how could it not be considered a burdensome chore, no matter how trivial it is? A chore by definition is a task tangential to what you actually want to do. Why wouldn't you minimize those?

It's interesting that we don't apply the same logic to other things. Why have a timer on our microwave? Is it really that burdensome to keep track of a clock? Why have RSS feeds? Refrigerators instead of iceboxes? Low-fuel lamps? Alarm clocks? Motion sensing luminaires? Thermostats?

The problem is that we're used to computers being so abysmally awful that we tolerate mediocrity more than we would with other products. Criticizing Mac users for a perceived lack of intelligence or motivations is like saying that the first people who bought cars with electric starters just lacked wrist strength. ;)

And you know that operating system, "OSX"? That's "X" as in X Windows - what we Linux users have been using for ages. You finally now support it. And use a unix kernel, "XNU".

Ugh, X11… the most complicated way to run emacs ever created. I, for one, am glad that Apple adopted Quartz, which is based on PDF, instead of X Windows.

Of course Apple uses a UNIX kernel. Which they wrote in-house. So?

Apple is finally catching up to Unix Windows, they'll come our way eventually.

(I was thinking X was standard; apparently, it's only optional. But you're still Unix-based)

Umm, Mac OS X is UNIX. Or hadn't you heard? (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html) This is in contrast with Linux, of which no version has ever been POSIX-compliant.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. It's just that the word "UNIX" has a very specific meaning.

[KarenRei]

And congrats. What distro do you run?

Fedora. I even maintain a few packages. Not very well, mind you ;)

Really? Name another computer hardware manufacturer that has those features on all their computers

It's unfair to pick a particular set of features that Mac puts on its computers and then declare that as the measuring stick by which every other computer model, many of which are custom (and thus as distinct as snowflakes) must be measured.

That kind of reminds me of when I was shopping for bear repellant and looking at what brands were available with what stats. I found forestry service recommendations for spray duration and distance, and was surprised that only one brand met their recommendations. And then I later discovered other companies complaining that that one company who met the recommendations had helped the service write the recommendations.

Want me to pick my own benchmark? Hey, all of my PCs have RAIDs. Wait, your average Mac doesn't come with a raid? Ha -- inferior technology! (see how this works? :) )

And yet it's selling like hotcakes. (the native apps thing is fixed, btw)

It's selling like hotcakes because Apple knows how to plug the heck out of a product. Nobody is disputing that they've gone from horrible PR management to some of the best in the industry. As for native apps, it took them until a month ago to release a SDK. Remember people having to "unlock" the phone, by the way, and risk Apple bricking it if you did an update (they fought that one tooth and nail)? I didn't even go down the whole list. My favorite? The spree of articles about people who went overseas and had their iPhone *off* and racked up several thousand dollars worth of roaming data charges because the iPhone regularly connected to fetch their email.

The iPod was also the first DAP to use FireWire for transfers. It was the first hard-drive player to fit in your pocket. It had decent battery life. It had the first interface designed to listen to your music, not manage it (that's what the computer was for). Today we bask in a sea of iPod killers, so we forget how bad it truly was back then.

There are Slashdot threads a mile long back in the day poking fun at how little space and how way overpriced the iPod was in comparison to its competitors. They were kind to it for its size and weight, but there was a pretty much universal consensus that it was overpriced for what you got. The header on the first slashdot article: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

Ugh, X11… the most complicated way to run emacs ever created

What are you talking about? It either starts up automatically or you type startx, on any normal Linux system. Your WM loads on top of it. And then you just have a normal desktop -- in my case, KDE. What's your gripe with X? Internals?

Umm, Mac OS X is UNIX.

Did I not just state that Mac uses a Unix kernel? My point was that they didn't used to, hence the phrase "catching up".

Well, at least we'll agree on one thing: Mac is better than Windows :)

[n_dawg]

Fedora. I even maintain a few packages. Not very well, mind you

It's unfair to pick a particular set of features that Mac puts on its computers and then declare that as the measuring stick by which every other computer model, many of which are custom (and thus as distinct as snowflakes) must be measured.

That kind of reminds me of when I was shopping for bear repellent and looking at what brands were available with what stats. I found forestry service recommendations for spray duration and distance, and was surprised that only one brand met their recommendations. And then I later discovered other companies complaining that that one company who met the recommendations had helped the service write the recommendations.

Want me to pick my own benchmark? Hey, all of my PCs have RAIDs. Wait, your average Mac doesn't come with a raid? Ha -- inferior technology! (see how this works? )


Very cool. I'm an Ubuntu man myself (Kubuntu, actually).

Even your laptops have RAID? ;) Of course, I was referring to hardware manufacturers, not individual users. Your "average" computer from Dell, HP, or Levono doesn't have RAID either…


It's selling like hotcakes because Apple knows how to plug the heck out of a product. Nobody is disputing that they've gone from horrible PR management to some of the best in the industry. As for native apps, it took them until a month ago to release a SDK. Remember people having to "unlock" the phone, by the way, and risk Apple bricking it if you did an update (they fought that one tooth and nail)?

Ahh, the bricking accusation. Of course, it couldn't be that the firmware was rushed out in time for the release, and that they needed time to clean it up so third-party apps didn't crash the iPhone, thus unleashing a torrent of complaints from users…

Impossible.


I didn't even go down the whole list. My favorite? The spree of articles about people who went overseas and had their iPhone *off* and racked up several thousand dollars worth of roaming data charges because the iPhone regularly connected to fetch their email.


So they couldn't even get their own applications to not screw up. What makes you think the OS was ready for third-party apps?


There are Slashdot threads a mile long back in the day poking fun at how little space and how way overpriced the iPod was in comparison to its competitors. They were kind to it for its size and weight, but there was a pretty much universal consensus that it was overpriced for what you got. The header on the first slashdot article: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."


My (http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-auto-show/detroit-auto-show-x+prize-automotive-entries-to-be-unveiled-332381.php) point (http://digg.com/environment/300_mpg_hybrid_for_under_30k_taking_reservations/all) exactly (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/12/21/1425234.shtml).

Hah, yes, the CmdrTaco quote that went down in infamy. Of course, I can do the same thing for Aptera: "No back seat, less range than a Civic. Lame."

In both cases, the criticisms are missing the point – there are drawbacks to both products, but they are vastly outweighed by the advantages.

With the same initial reception, let's hope the similarities continue…

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/ipod_market_share.jpg

:)


What are you talking about? It either starts up automatically or you type startx, on any normal Linux system. Your WM loads on top of it. And then you just have a normal desktop -- in my case, KDE. What's your gripe with X? Internals?


Yes. X's poor internals are the reason there's no effective remote desktop on Linux (VNC is just sad compared to the offerings from Microsoft and Apple).

Just because the design is hidden doesn't mean it's well designed. See also: almost every car on the road today.


Did I not just state that Mac uses a Unix kernel? My point was that they didn't used to, hence the phrase "catching up".

Well, at least we'll agree on one thing: Mac is better than Windows

Indeed. Of course, I never used a Mac in the pre-UNIX Mac OS 9 days (AKA the Dark Ages). When it used inferior technology, I derided it. When it moved to superior technology, I switched. ;)

(Sorry, I had to remove KarenRei's emotes, since they're counted towards the 4 images. Can that be fixed?)

[G-Jet]

mac sales up 23% in a broadly declining PC market. they must be doing something right.
:)

g

[KarenRei]

Ahh, the bricking accusation. Of course, it couldn't be that the firmware was rushed out in time for the release, and that they needed time to clean it up so third-party apps didn't crash the iPhone, thus unleashing a torrent of complaints from users?

Impossible.

Yeah. Right on the heel of Apple stores voiding the warranty for unlocked iPhones. They could have issued it as security pack, overwriting the unlock, but they chose not to. Knowing that they'd be bricking. So even if the bricking wasn't the goal, it still was a real jerk of a move to not stop it.

So they couldn't even get their own applications to not screw up. What makes you think the OS was ready for third-party apps?

Wait a minute -- weren't you just a minute ago arguing for the technical superiority of Apple products?

With the same initial reception, let's hope the similarities continue?

But you see, that's exactly my point: it's not about a better product for a better price. It's about image. Brilliantly crafted and promoted image. The Apple brand went from dorky has-been to must-have through excellent marketting.

Yes. X's poor internals are the reason there's no effective remote desktop on Linux (VNC is just sad compared to the offerings from Microsoft and Apple).

VNC? Bah. Nomachine. :)

(but yes, I would like to see something like NoMachine integrated into X itself)

[mmalc]

In contrast to the open, friendly sort of environ that dominates much of Silicon Valley, Apple is run in a rather authoritarian, workers-are-commidities type manner.

This turns out not to be the case.

[mmalc]

One thing I've noticed is that people who use Macs don't seem to be really tech savvy

I think this would be a reasonable characterisation of most computer users.

That said, some very tech savvy people choose to use Macs -- for the Apple perspective see this overview (http://www.apple.com/science/); for an end-user perspective, this (http://macresearch.org/) is a good site.

[bobjohnson]

Here's an interesting article about Mac fanaticism within a broader context of partisan thinking. Thought you guys might be interested if you haven't seen it.
http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2008/03/18/true_enough_excerpt_2/index.html
Why Apple fans hate tech reporters
Excerpted from "True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo (Wiley, 2008)
Man reading newspaper

In the fall of 2004, Walt Mossberg, the Wall Street Journal's influential tech columnist, reviewed Apple's latest desktop computer, the iMac G5. He absolutely loved the thing; you can tell from his first paragraph, which would not have been out of place at a beatification: "I am writing these words on the most elegant desktop computer I've ever used, a computer that is not only uncommonly beautiful but fast and powerful, virus-free and surprisingly affordable," he wrote.

Mossberg went on to say that the iMac "performed flawlessly and speedily," "was nearly silent," and that it "actually costs less than comparable Windows machines." He had only two tiny complaints. The computer lacked a built-in card reader to access pictures stored in digital cameras, and "Apple scrimped on memory," adding far fewer megabytes of the stuff than was common on Windows machines.

Mossberg's column ran for about 900 words; just 70 of them, or 8 percent, by my count, suggested anything even approaching negative criticism. Apple loved the review so much that it excerpted it in advertisements. Apple CEO Steve Jobs quoted it in his speeches. But Mossberg says that his mailbox told a different story. Several Apple fans felt slighted. What did he have against Apple? they wanted to know.

There are many tribes in the tech world: TiVo lovers, Blackberry addicts, Palm Treo fanatics, and people who exhibit unhealthy affection for their Roomba robotic vacuum cleaners. But there is no bigger tribe, and none more zealous, than fans of Apple, who are infamous for their sensitivity to slams, real or imagined, against the beloved company. "It's funny -- even if I write a generally positive piece about Apple, I still get more complaints from Apple partisans" than from opponents, Mossberg says. He has even coined a term for the effect. "I call it the Doctrine of Insufficient Adulation."

In my years as a tech reporter, I've dealt first-hand with Mossberg's doctrine -- as well as its opposite, the PC fans who see a pro-Apple press bias in my work (a few years ago, Salon's customer service department informed me that a reader called to cancel a subscription in response to my piece, "Hallelujah, the Mac Is Back.")

Last year, I praised the iPhone in something of the way Romeo once praised Juliet: The device, I said, is revolutionary -- "it marks a new way of life. One day we'll all have iPhones, or things that aim to do what this first one does, and your life will be better for it." But because I'd concluded that the phone was, at the time, too expensive to keep (this was before Apple cut the price), several readers alleged that I was an Apple hater. For instance: "Does Salon actually pay you or are you being paid under the table by rival companies?"

Book cover David Pogue, the New York Times' tech critic, gets much the same response. In 2005, he wrote a quite positive review of Apple's iPod Nano. His only problem with the music player was that, per gigabyte of music-storage space, the Nano was more expensive than the iPod Mini it replaced. Also, at the time, it wasn't available in multiple colors. These small slights prompted Apple fans to ask Pogue, among other things, whether he was happy "licking Bill Gates' balls."

Why are Mac fans so quick to see bias everywhere? To understand the phenomenon, consider a study (PDF) that Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper, psychologists at Stanford University, conducted in the aftermath of another issue that provokes many accusations of press bias, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the evening of Sept. 16, 1982, a militia associated with the Phalangists, a Lebanese Maronite Christian political party, entered the sprawling Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, in West Beirut, and set about killing hundreds of civilians. Proponents of the Palestinian cause quickly blamed Israel for what had happened; Israeli forces, which had been surrounding the camp, should have stopped the killings, they argued. Staunch supporters of Israel, meanwhile, absolved the country of any responsibility for what the Phalangists had done.

Shortly after the incident, Vallone, Ross and Lepper recruited 144 Stanford students from three different places on campus -- from the pro-Arab and pro-Israeli student associations, as well as from introductory psychology courses. The researchers showed the students six news segments covering the massacre; the clips were collected from national evening news programs, and were intended, in the way that network news is, to be mainstream, non-partisan depictions of the events in Lebanon. The participants were asked to rate the programs in several ways, all covering the same basic point: how fairly had the networks presented the case of Sabra and Shatila?

People who were neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- presumably those from the psych classes -- came down somewhere in the middle. They didn't think the news clips supported either party in the conflict. But proponents of each side saw it differently.

Pro-Palestinian viewers said the news clips excused "Israel when they would have blamed some other country"; that the news accounts didn't focus enough on Israel's role in the massacre; that the segments would prompt neutral observers to take Israel's side; and that the journalists who'd put together the stories were probably advocates of Israel. Israel's supporters, meanwhile, said the exact opposite.

On issues we're passionate about, we all tend to think our own views are essentially reasonable, Ross explains. Thus when a reporter, editor, news network, or pundit mentions the other side's arguments, it stings.

"If I see the world as all black and you see the world as all white and some person comes along and says it's partially black and partially white, we both are going to be unhappy," Ross says. "You think there are more facts and better facts on your side than on the other side. The very act of giving them equal weight seems like bias. Like inappropriate evenhandedness."

Over the years, many experiments -- a few more on how people watch news about the Middle East, and others involving abortion, genetically modified food, and the wisdom of medical research on animals -- have confirmed Vallone, Ross and Lepper's findings. Psychologists call this the "hostile media phenomenon," and it goes far in explaining how both Apple and PC folks can see the opposite bias in the same news story.

Tech columnists Mossberg and Pogue don't claim to be objective. They're critics, and they trade in that slipperiest of all media productions: personal opinion. At the same time, each is unfailingly ethical and intellectually honest. Their articles brim with justification. Neither will tell you that he simply hates the newest Sony digital camera -- he'll tell you that its battery drains faster than Niagara Falls, or that its manual reads like a translation from Japanese to French to English, or that every picture comes out sepia.

If you're non-partisan, this is all you could want from a tech reviewer, and Mossberg and Pogue's style likely accounts for their enormous popularity. But many fans of Apple often seem to want more. They care little for honest opinion. They want to pick up the paper and see in it a reflection of their own nearly religious zeal for the thing they love. They don't want a review. They want a hagiography.

Many Americans aren't really very different. In polls (PDF), people claim not to be interested in getting "news from sources that share your point of view," and prefer instead "sources that don't have a particular point of view."

But for people who feel strongly about an issue -- for Apple fanatics, for abortion partisans, for folks who think they know the truth about global warming or what's going on in the Middle East -- personal views feel distinct and luminous. Journalistic "objectivity" inevitably produces a muddier picture.

When they come upon that difference -- the gulf between what's in their heads and what's on the page -- the audience tends to assume the worst: The reporter must be licking someone's balls.


I think more than anything else, Mac is an extraordinarily successful brandname that manages to be trendy while roping in all the types of people who pretend to avoid trendy items.

Owning a Mac is somehow interpreted as making a statement. You get such a level of brand loyalty and blind devotion that I can remember one instance of arguing with a friend in high school over what he saw as the advantages of the single button mouse. And this was just obvious to him. How could a two button mouse be superior? Apple computers would have them if they were superior, therefore they must not be. Apple loyalists pay more for an ultimately equal or inferior product, based on successful advertisement, a shiny case, and a pleasant interface, and they feel the need to justify their overpriced purchase.

And their horrible condescending commercials almost guarantee that I won't be buying another one of their products. You SQUARES and your PCs!!!! It has an effect on me similar to what my response would be if Ford decided to make a commercial about Japanese car companies and citing Pearl Harbor.

Having said that, I own a Macbook Air and an Ipod, and use XP at work :)

And a joke article... One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't:
(Not work safe for language) http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
:D

[appyfan]

If it's getting in the way of what I want to get done, how could it not be considered a burdensome chore, no matter how trivial it is? A chore by definition is a task tangential to what you actually want to do. Why wouldn't you minimize those?

It's interesting that we don't apply the same logic to other things. Why have a timer on our microwave? Is it really that burdensome to keep track of a clock? Why have RSS feeds? Refrigerators instead of iceboxes? Low-fuel lamps? Alarm clocks? Motion sensing luminaires? Thermostats?

The problem is that we're used to computers being so abysmally awful that we tolerate mediocrity more than we would with other products. Criticizing Mac users for a perceived lack of intelligence or motivations is like saying that the first people who bought cars with electric starters just lacked wrist strength. ;)

You took the essence of my criticism, tossed it in the air, put some sauce and cheese on it, and decided to call it a pizza.

The Apple computer is literally making computer users weaker when it comes to technological literacy. For me, battery management should be dealt with on a personal basis, not built upon a predesigned, preset, factory tuned concept. An Apple lap top doesn't allow me to tune my CPU settings to operate at a given percentage given the amount of battery life I have remaining. I want control, and I want to be in control of my computer at all times regardless of what it "looks" like. I want to control most if not all technical aspects of my computer and I want to know where every single electron of my power supply is going. There are people who drive automatics, and people who drive manuals. People who drive automatics just want one less thing to do, whereas people who make a choice to drive a manual are more technical about their driving habits.

In reference to your baking timer analogy, I think anyone who has to RELY on a baking timer shouldn't be baking in the first place. If you're that absent minded when it comes to baking brownies in an oven you're more of pyrotechnical liability than a pastry chef.

You talk about time. I wear a watch because I want to keep track of time. I might decide to write down that I have an appointment or maybe type that meeting on my computer but in the end only your memory becomes your greatest asset. If you've come to a point in your life where you must RELY on something or someone in order to be on the ball with things, you're getting weaker.

You mention low-fuel lamps. Do you know what an idiot light is? They don't call it for nothing. For that matter why bother having a fuel gauge all together if one just happens to be the kind of person which only refuels when their car has to shout out "FEED ME NOW OR ELSE!". Does it take that much effort to casually check your fuel gauge as you drive? Is it too hard to see?

The invention of the electric starter was a major evolutionary contribution to the automotive world. An Ipod shuffle is not a major evolutionary contribution. A computer that does things in its own quirky yet beautifully crafted way is not a major evolutionary contribution, nor is it a contribution to the advancement of the personal computer. Remember, Apple, almost died.

The bottom line is, it's thinking like this that gives this country a bad rap, simply because we choose what's easy instead of what’s fundamentally important. If you buy a Mac just 'cause it’s the thing to do, you’re retarded. And if you buy a Mac because you think it’s a smarter choice, you’re still not intelligent.

[mmalc]

The Apple computer is literally making computer users weaker when it comes to technological literacy. For me, battery management should be dealt with on a personal basis, not built upon a predesigned, preset, factory tuned concept. An Apple lap top doesn't allow me to tune my CPU settings to operate at a given percentage given the amount of battery life I have remaining. I want control, and I want to be in control of my computer at all times regardless of what it "looks" like. I want to control most if not all technical aspects of my computer and I want to know where every single electron of my power supply is going. There are people who drive automatics, and people who drive manuals. People who drive automatics just want one less thing to do, whereas people who make a choice to drive a manual are more technical about their driving habits.
[...]
The bottom line is, it's thinking like this that gives this country a bad rap, simply because we choose what's easy instead of what’s fundamentally important. If you buy a Mac just 'cause it’s the thing to do, you’re retarded. And if you buy a Mac because you think it’s a smarter choice, you’re still not intelligent.

I think this quotation is apposite:

It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all
copy-books and by eminent people when they are making
speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking
of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case.
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important
operations we can perform without thinking about them.
Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a
battle---they are strictly limited in number, they
require fresh horses, and must be made only at decisive moments.

-------- Alfred North Whitehead (1861--1947)

[appyfan]

I think this quotation is apposite:

It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all
copy-books and by eminent people when they are making
speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking
of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case.
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important
operations we can perform without thinking about them.
Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a
battle---they are strictly limited in number, they
require fresh horses, and must be made only at decisive moments.

-------- Alfred North Whitehead (1861--1947)
Does that also mean that you believe planes should be flown by computers rather than pilots because it "extends the number of important operations we can perform without thinking about them"?

Does that mean you believe that people should avoid eating properly and exercising regularly because taking special dieting pills are a more advanced way to lose weight?

Where do you draw the line between thinking and being brain dead?

[Aptera #1159]

Does that also mean that you believe planes should be flown by computers rather than pilots because it "extends the number of important operations we can perform without thinking about them"?

Does that mean you believe that people should avoid eating properly and exercising regularly because taking special dieting pills are a more advanced way to lose weight?

Where do you draw the line between thinking and being brain dead?

That's what programs are for. The automate things, so we don't have to.

As long as the person knows how to be in charge (this is the problem), automated functions are fine.

[mmalc]

Does that also mean that you believe planes should be flown by computers rather than pilots because it "extends the number of important operations we can perform without thinking about them"?

For the most part, yes. The majority of accidents in aviation are due to human factors.

Does that mean you believe that people should avoid eating properly and exercising regularly because taking special dieting pills are a more advanced way to lose weight?

I'm not sure why this is relevant?

Where do you draw the line between thinking and being brain dead?

You're misrepresenting the quote and trying to create a strawman. There is no suggestion that no-one should think.

The suggestion is that it is more useful to devote one's cognitive efforts to things that can't readily be automated.

Why do you use a watch? You're relying on something that could break. Would it not be better for you to memorise solar cycles and calculate the time of day based on the location of the sun in the sky?

[hyo silver]

I never really understood this PC/mac animosity. I use both every day. Neither is perfect, and both have their advantages and limitations. On balance, I'd give the edge to the mac, especially if there's a network involved.
The suggestion that I'm somehow less intelligent because I'd rather not have to spend part of every day tweaking the controls is just silly.

[mmalc]

I never really understood this PC/mac animosity.

Likewise.

The suggestion that I'm somehow less intelligent because I'd rather not have to spend part of every day tweaking the controls is just silly.

Indeed.

Perhaps more relevant to a motor forum: Why rely on an engine management system when you can control the fuel mixture yourself? Why have ABS when you can just as easily pump the brakes? Why have a GPS system when you can just read a map?

[c0mp13x]

I've deleted the last few posts that I thought were offensive, please keep the posts civil and appropriate for all ages.

Thanks,

The Mods :)

[appyfan]

Love you too complex. :D