You "just know"? You don't know. You are purely speculating.
The components on Mac PCB's consistently come from high-quality manufacturers. I don't know who assembles the boards (I assume apple does that in house), but I know the components put on those boards are of superior quality to most other manufacturers. Go look at some iFixit tear downs, and you'll see what I mean. They have the manufacturers labeled for you right there.
Quote from ButtChew »
You claim that macbook pro's will last 5+ years running perfectly. If you bought a macbook pro today, it would not be modern in 5 years.
No, it wouldn't, but it would still be able to perform the tasks that most consumers would require of it. Very few people buy laptops to do anything more than browse the web, play videos, and occasionally play some flash games, and these systems will handle that just fine for years to come.
I know that if my dad's Gateway wasn't going to fall apart in a few months (it's about 3 or 4 years old now, and Gateway has really gone downhill from what it used to be) it would still be able to do what my dad required it to do. Just because hardware becomes obsolete, doesn't mean it quits working.
Quote from ButtChew »
Are you kidding me? Those featuers are worth over $1,300? Lets break them down while we're at it:
My toshiba has a sturdy hinge, it has bluetooth, wireless N and a 3.2 megapixel camera (and omg yes it has a mic!). I can pinch and multi-touch my trackpad too! Modern technology is amazing! Besides the unibody metal frame of the macbook, you haven't mentioned anything that isn't available with other laptops of today.
One of the things Apple spends a good amount of money on (and consequently why their products are more expensive), is research and development into the best way of bringing a consistent, smooth, and pleasant user experience across their range of products. It may cost a lot of money, but the user experience is worth it to many people who buy in to Apple's ecosystem. No other manufacturer can provide that. The other features, which are indeed found on many modern laptops, aren't found on all of them, and are [even today] often reserved for somewhat higher end models. But even if a laptop has all of those features, they never blend well, because the manufacturer does a half-assed job of integrating all of those features in convenient and easy to use manner. You can't blame them, because OEM's other than Apple only deal with hardware, while Apple deals with software as well. But it doesn't excuse the fact that Apple laptops offer a better user experience because of it.
Quote from ButtChew »
Oh, warranty and customer service? I'm sure it's nice, because it costs $350. If you don't pay the 350, you can only get phone support for 90 days. Wahooo! Oh, and this "more important justification warranty" doesn't even include accidental damages.The big OEM's come with at least a year of phone support if you buy no warranty at all, and their warranties (if bought) will replace your entire laptop even if you spill coffee on it or run it over with a car.
Of course other manufacturers offer all of those things in a warranty. It's one way they make good sales. But most people don't end up needing or using that accidental damage protection, because people who buy expensive laptops are going to take good care of them, and people who buy cheap ones would rather just get a new one (or have the person who bought it for them get them a new one) since it's easier than going through the hassle of dealing with customer service and warranty offices.
The OEM's offer those services, yes, but they don't make it easy to take advantage of them. For the most part, it's all just for show (granted, those services are there, but it's a massive pain in the ass to make use of them).
Apple on the other hand, offers to replace or fix the laptop if the laptop fails from simply being used. That makes perfect sense to me, because a manufacturer shouldn't be offering to replace your laptop if you spilled coffee on it. That's ridiculous, and the manufacturers has no way of knowing for sure if it was really an accident. Hence why it's so hard to take advantage of accidental damage protection.
Applecare may be expensive, but if you actually take care of the things you buy, then it'll be exactly what you need (though honestly, Apple products are so reliable that you don't need Applecare in most cases. It's only necessary when you really make good use of the product, like my friend did with his Macbook Pro).
Quote from ButtChew »
It is personal preference, and I never said they make bad products. They are OVER PRICED products.
15" Macbook Pro with an i5 processor: $2,000 ($2,350 with the applecare)
Identical stats or better Toshiba: $670 ($250 for 3 years including accidental damage).
I'm sorry, but 90 days of phone support, a metal body, blutooth/wireless-n and good camera aren't worth $1,300. I can't think of anything else you are getting out of them besides a "good looking" computer. When it comes to laptops, at least for me, performance > looks.
They're over priced if you don't like paying for quality. And by quality, I'm not just referring to the laptop. When you buy an apple product, your buying the service and reliability that comes with it. There's a reason Apple only charged $30 for OS X Snow Leopard, while Microsoft charges hundreds of dollars for Windows 7.
Again, accidental damage protection is a farce. The manufacturer has so many loopholes through which to get out of covering your accidental damage to their product, that it may as well not even exist.
Also, again, you're paying for more than just hardware when you buy a Macbook.
The components on Mac PCB's consistently come from high-quality manufacturers.
Again, you have no specifics or facts on who manufactures Macbook parts. You have no idea how they compare to other hardware. You only "know" they are better.
I know that if my dad's Gateway wasn't going to fall apart in a few months ...
Uh, you bought a gateway. They were shitty when they first started, and are still shitty now. Macbook Pro's are high quality because they are better than a gateway? A speak-n-spell is better than a gateway.
It may cost a lot of money, but the user experience is worth it to many people who buy in to Apple's ecosystem. No other manufacturer can provide that.
Provide what?! What user experience? What do you experience when you buy a mac that is so different from buying from somewhere else? Last time I checked apples shopping cart software didn't cause my panties to drop and spend an additional $1,500 for an "ecosystem".
The other features, which are indeed found on many modern laptops, aren't found on all of them, and are [even today] often reserved for somewhat higher end models.
Uh, they are found EASILY on a WIDE range of PC laptops. And wtf do you mean they don't blend well? The features on my laptop work 100%. Features don't blend well? You are pulling random and vague accusations out of your ass.
the manufacturer does a half-assed job of integrating all of those features in convenient and easy to use manner.
Last time I checked I wasn't retarded. Let me check ... I can turn my wireless on and off. Check. I can use my trackpad. Check. Webcam turns on as expected. Check.
Of course other manufacturers offer all of those things in a warranty.
The other manufacturers offer it. Apple doesn't offer it at all, no matter what.
But most people don't end up needing or using that accidental damage protection, because people who buy expensive laptops are going to take good care of them
So you are saying that out of everyone who has owned a macbook pro ... none of them have accidentally damaged their laptops? Yeah, that is very probable.
The OEM's offer those services, yes, but they don't make it easy to take advantage of them. For the most part, it's all just for show
Again, talking out of your ass. My brother has had his dell completely replaced TWICE! The only "catch" was that he had to send it in, and didn't have a laptop till the new one arrived.
Apple on the other hand, offers to replace or fix the laptop if the laptop fails from simply being used.
So does EVERY major OEM warranty. Nothing special about that.
a manufacturer shouldn't be offering to replace your laptop if you spilled coffee on it. That's ridiculous, and the manufacturers has no way of knowing for sure if it was really an accident.
Uh, that is what makes it amazing. They WILL replace it if you accidentally damage it. There is a limit on how many times you are able to (with dell's $300 warranty it is 2 times within 2 years).
Applecare may be expensive, but if you actually take care of the things you buy, then it'll be exactly what you need.
Yeah, everything Apple is expensive. The warrant is $350 for a BASIC 3 year warranty. You can get on-site warranties for that price with other OEM's. Again, another over-priced apple product.
They're over priced if you don't like paying for quality. And by quality, I'm not just referring to the laptop. When you buy an apple product, your buying the service and reliability that comes with it.
We've already established that apples service and warranty pale in comparison to other OEM's in both price, longevity, as well as coverage.
There's a reason Apple only charged $30 for OS X Snow Leopard, while Microsoft charges hundreds of dollars for Windows 7.
They sell it for $30 because they gouged you an extra $1,500 on their hardware!
Again, accidental damage protection is a farce.
You are full of ****, I know PLENTY of people who have used theirs. And yes you can even cheat the system with it quite easily.
Also, again, you're paying for more than just hardware when you buy a Macbook.
What else?
So far you have listed:
1) Better hardware; but nothing to prove or validate this.
2) The buying experience; whatever the hell that means.
3) ... I don't see anything else.
You can't list applecare, because for one it's not even included in the already over-priced cost of a MBP. And secondly, it is horrible in comparison to other OEM service warranties. With dell you can get on-site service with accidental damage for the amount you have to dish out for applecare.
Saying that you "pay for more than the hardware when you buy a Mac" is hipster nonsense. Apple's hardware may be good. Above average, even, in some cases. I don't think anyone's really arguing that. The fact is that piece for piece, Apple is overpriced. No amount of "ecosystem" can justify that unless you're completely brainwashed.
I'll give you an "experience": go buy hardware equivalent to what Apple crams in theirs and save 30%+. Not only do you save money, you get to learn something about computers.
People that critically think about their choice in PC and end up going with Mac, do not pick Mac for the hardware specs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Making the mistake of digging straight down; 3 hearts,
Falling into lava pool (lucky you have a bucket of water); 4 hearts,
Telling a hissing creeper "No!" - priceless.
People that critically think about their choice in PC and end up going with Mac, do not pick Mac for the hardware specs.
You've contributed nothing to the conversation. Congratulations.
You're very amusing; the very stereotype of a nerd that spends their day anti-social behind a monitor; self-aggrandizing and arrogant towards anyone that undermines you, holding onto a grudge all at the same time. You're such a character.
You argue that people are choosing Mac because of the specs; thats why you posed that image which is entirely true; only an idiot would pay premiums for inferior hardware. FACT is peopel dont chose Mac for hardware -its entirely related to the topic.
For a nerd, you're pretty dull-witted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Making the mistake of digging straight down; 3 hearts,
Falling into lava pool (lucky you have a bucket of water); 4 hearts,
Telling a hissing creeper "No!" - priceless.
You're very amusing; the very stereotype of a nerd that spends their day anti-social behind a monitor; self-aggrandizing and arrogant towards anyone that undermines you, holding onto a grudge all at the same time. You're such a character.
You argue that people are choosing Mac because of the specs; thats why you posed that image which is entirely true; only an idiot would pay premiums for inferior hardware. FACT is peopel dont chose Mac for hardware -its entirely related to the topic.
For a nerd, you're pretty dull-witted.
I never even implied that what you said was unrelated to the topic. I said it added nothing to the discussion. Why? Because if you would have taken the time to read, you'd have noticed that this point has already been brought up. You restating it just wastes space.
How am I holding a grudge? And have you stopped to notice the hypocrisy here? You're acting just as arrogant as I am. And it's funny how you assert that I spend all day behind a monitor being antisocial when, for starters, you have no idea how much I actually spend at my computer, and secondly, one can be social while at a computer. They're not mutually exclusive. This forum, even, is a place to communicate with others. Talking to you here makes me social by definition.
It's unbecoming of you, getting all bent out of shape just because I said something mean to you. You seem to have pretty tender feelings. How do you manage to survive with all those mean people out in the world?
As far as Macs go - they do tend to be expensive. There's a quality argument to be made, I suppose, but honestly I've had few quality problems with my PC. It's probably because I build my own PCs these days so I can spend a bit more time researching component quality.
But, it also seems this is about OSes, so I'll talk about that a bit . . .
I haven't had much experience with Macs, to be honest. Since the OS is only really bought with the hardware, I haven't had much experience with it outside occasionally using one at the library.
Linux I've had some experience with - and frankly, it's just not up to the ease of use of Windows, even with the latest revisions of Ubuntu. The "start" key has to be mapped via a tweak in a configuration panel, not via the key mapper. By default, Gnome has two bars, likely because it is displaying more information than anybody really needs. Items in the bars have to be unlocked individually, making them into a lot more micromanagement than Windows 7.
Linux is made with the philosophy that customization is more important than anything else. Even ease of use.
Unfortunately, I think they missed most people with that. Geeks love to customize their stuff to death - but most other people don't. While most people like the ability to "personalize" their desktop, it's more along the lines of branding it to say "hey, this is mine" and not along the lines of "look at how much I can mess around with everything."
Linux also still likes to do some stuff in the command line. Why? Because the people who designed Linux decided that most people are in the automation business and love making scripts.
Problem is, that's not really most people either. Most people want a computer that just works - they don't want to tinker around with its innards. Any automation that has to be done should IMO be built into the OS from the beginning, or available as a software application. Only developers should really have to worry about the automation stuff.
So IMO even some of the most "friendly" Linux distros today still miss the boat when it comes to ease of use for most users.
Linux is also missing the mark when it comes to downloadable stuff online. When you go off the beaten path away from your package manager into web land, you're in for a rough ride. Some software is only for certain distros (and often not yours). Some software requires a bunch of dependencies of strange libraries. Some software isn't even compiled - you literally have to play developer and grab a bunch of dev tools and compile it.
I still run Linux in a VM occasionally to see what's happening there, but honestly I don't see using it as my primary OS. I prefer to stay on a platform I know most users are using.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
Linux I've had some experience with - and frankly, it's just not up to the ease of use of Windows, even with the latest revisions of Ubuntu.
Well, I think that really depends on what we define as "ease of use." Ease of use is not the same as familiarity. People seem to make the mistake a lot. A lot of people argue that Windows is "easy" things that aren't Windows are not easy because they don't work like Windows. That really gets under my skin. It's not hard, it's just different. Some things are easier to do in Windows than in Linux. Some things are easier to do in Linux than Windows.
Quote from CobraA1 »
Linux also still likes to do some stuff in the command line. Why? Because the people who designed Linux decided that most people are in the automation business and love making scripts.
Problem is, that's not really most people either. Most people want a computer that just works - they don't want to tinker around with its innards. Any automation that has to be done should IMO be built into the OS from the beginning, or available as a software application. Only developers should really have to worry about the automation stuff.
No. This I strong disagree with. There are plenty of things that are worlds easier with a command line that simply wouldn't be possible with a GUI without needlessly complicating the interface. It's not really possible to do the kinds of automation that a shell script can provide with a GUI. If you tried to do it, I'd almost guarantee you'd just wind up with a GUI for writing scripts.
Furthermore, in a lot of modern distributions, you never really have to use the command line unless you get some system problems. Any task that a normal user wants to do can, most of the time, be done completely from a GUI. The CLI-phobic (which is a pretty irrational fear), don't have to touch a command line if they don't want to.
Quote from CobraA1 »
The "start" key has to be mapped via a tweak in a configuration panel, not via the key mapper. By default, Gnome has two bars, likely because it is displaying more information than anybody really needs.
I'm not sure what you mean by the start key. Are you talking about the Windows/Super key being used to open the applications menu? You can easily set that in the keyboard shortcuts. I'm not sure what you mean by "key mapper" if you're not talking about that keyboard shortcuts dialog.
And GNOME, which in my opinion sucks away, has two bars for space reasons. The default set-up is the application menu and system try on the top and open windows on the bottom. It's really not any different than Windows' task bar. Windows' task bar often winds up much too cluttered, at least in my opinion. I'm not really sure what information would be on the panel that you wouldn't want. Internet connection status, Bluetooth status if you have Bluetooth, clock, Update Manager if it's running. The "useless" things are only going to be on the panel if you put them there yourself. Then again, I haven't used GNOME for a couple of months, so things may have changed since then, and I may be totally wrong here.
Quote from CobraA1 »
Linux is also missing the mark when it comes to downloadable stuff online. When you go off the beaten path away from your package manager into web land, you're in for a rough ride. Some software is only for certain distros (and often not yours). Some software requires a bunch of dependencies of strange libraries. Some software isn't even compiled - you literally have to play developer and grab a bunch of dev tools and compile it.
I'm not sure what applications you'd want that wouldn't be in the repositories. Just about anything you'd want is in there. The only things I'd imagine you wouldn't be able to find would be small, obscure projects and custom builds of programs, and those are things only someone who has no problem compiling this would likely want.
Not that compiling is really hard. All the "dev tools" are generally in one build-essential package and dependencies are usually listed on the site your downloading from. After that, you just run "make && make install" and nine times out of ten, you'd good to do. Of course, there are programs that are an absolute nightmare to install from source.
Ease of use is not the same as familiarity. People seem to make the mistake a lot.
That distinction being made - I stand by that quoted statement.
Sorry, no dice.
It's not hard, it's just different.
Yes. It is different. And hard.
In fact, being different can make it hard - training new users and retraining users of different systems is actually an important part of UI design. Something Linux devs seem to have forgotten.
There are plenty of things that are worlds easier with a command line that simply wouldn't be possible with a GUI without needlessly complicating the interface.
99.9% of those things are tasks only developers should ever have to worry about, and regular users should never have to touch.
It's not really possible to do the kinds of automation that a shell script can provide with a GUI.
They should be automated by the OS or by third party software. Not by trying to teach all users how to write shell scripts.
The CLI-phobic (which is a pretty irrational fear)
Yes, blame it on fear. That's it, that's the problem. They must all be fearful.
Sorry, blaming fear is not a solution to a broken UI.
I'm not sure what you mean by the start key. Are you talking about the Windows/Super key being used to open the applications menu?
I was writing on a system that had the word "start" on the keyboard. Sorry, didn't bother to look up the actual name.
You can easily set that in the keyboard shortcuts. I'm not sure what you mean by "key mapper" if you're not talking about that keyboard shortcuts dialog.
Go ahead, try mapping the Windows key with the keyboard shortcuts dialog. Tell me how well it works. Chances are, you have to combine it with another key - you can't use it by itself. Linux has a keyboard handler that gives special treatment to modifier keys, and making them act like regular keys is difficult.
In Windows, the Windows key can act both ways - it acts like a regular key if you tap it by itself, and can be combined with other keys as a shortcut modifier. Granted, there's not an easy way to remap it in Windows, but I can guarantee you that people trying Linux for the first time after using Windows for a long time are gonna try to make it act a bit more like Windows.
The default set-up is the application menu and system try on the top and open windows on the bottom. It's really not any different than Windows' task bar.
It's one more visual item added to the lowest level, which adds clutter. Where in most other OSes you have one bar, you now have two - each with its own elements inside. Yes, that is more visual clutter, and yes that is really different than Windows' task bar from a UI design perspective.
Internet connection status, Bluetooth status if you have Bluetooth, clock, Update Manager if it's running.
On my main system, it's virtually 100% internet uptime, the internet icon is useless. Only on my mobile system is it actually useful. The bluetooth icon just tells me I have bluetooth installed. Considering that I already know that and my bluetooth stuff works automatically, it's equally useless. Updates are only really important when I need to reboot the system. Otherwise just make it automatic and hide it unless it needs user input.
Every icon is a little bit of added clutter. If something is there, it should be something the user uses all the time. Occasional use items should be hidden by default.
Yes, I understand the mentality that everybody wants as much information as you can throw at them - it's common in geeks, because it's a part of what they do. Geeks love to have gazillions of stuff telling them exactly what their system is doing.
But I'm not talking about us. I'm not talking about geeks. I'm not even talking about myself.
I'm talking about the average joe, the typical mother or grandparents. The people who only check email or surf the Internet.
I'm not sure what applications you'd want that wouldn't be in the repositories.
Games I've played in other distros, educational utilities, archaic utilities that the Linux professor uses. Sometimes the occasional useful utility that I find on the Internet.
Don't know off the top of my head, but it's happened. I've found stuff that isn't in the distro.
Not that compiling is really hard.
Have you ever met my mother? She doesn't even know where Word stores its files, and I've been trying to teach her the basics of file systems (which to me seems absolutely trivial) for years. You wanna teach her how to compile an application? Good luck, you'll need it. And plenty of Aspirin.
Requiring users to occasionally compile applications is not acceptable for a mature desktop OS.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
In fact, being different can make it hard - training new users and retraining users of different systems is actually an important part of UI design. Something Linux devs seem to have forgotten.
"This isn't Windows! It's too hard!" That way of thinking is extremely closed-minded. Is OS X hard because it has a dock? What's this "Finder" thing? Why aren't my windows in my task bar? What's going on? If someone has never seen a Mac before and only ever used Windows, I'd be willing to bet that would confuse them. And yet, OS X is hailed for it "usability".
Quote from CobraA1 »
99.9% of those things are tasks only developers should ever have to worry about, and regular users should never have to touch.
The point here is that users can speed things up if they want with the command line, which isn't that hard to use. And as I've said, regular users don't have to bother with the CLI. They can do a large majority of things the same, slow, GUI, Windows way if they want. They can rename a folder of files manually if they want. I'll be over here using prename and getting the same job done in a couple of seconds. If they want to move all the picture out of a folder and into another, they can select them all manually, but I'd be more apt to use `mv *.jpg picutres/`
Quote from CobraA1 »
They should be automated by the OS or by third party software. Not by trying to teach all users how to write shell scripts.
That's impossible. You'd have to code in every possible scenario for things the user would want to automate. And if you're going to give them options, it would have to be an extremely complex dialog to the point that user would just be writing shell scripts anyway, only with a GUI.
Quote from CobraA1 »
Go ahead, try mapping the Windows key with the keyboard shortcuts dialog. Tell me how well it works. Chances are, you have to combine it with another key - you can't use it by itself. Linux has a keyboard handler that gives special treatment to modifier keys, and making them act like regular keys is difficult.
In Windows, the Windows key can act both ways - it acts like a regular key if you tap it by itself, and can be combined with other keys as a shortcut modifier. Granted, there's not an easy way to remap it in Windows, but I can guarantee you that people trying Linux for the first time after using Windows for a long time are gonna try to make it act a bit more like Windows.
I always used Super+Space. I hit Super by itself on accident far too often. It always got on my nerves with windows.
Again, you come back to, "this isn't Windows! This is hard!" You can't use Linux and expect it to work like Windows. People don't expect OS X to work like Windows, do they? And no one complains about that.
You're contradicting yourself, as well. You're saying that Linux is bad because it's difficult to remap keys a certain way, and yet you give Windows the same criticism and accept it as okay.
Quote from CobraA1 »
It's one more visual item added to the lowest level, which adds clutter. Where in most other OSes you have one bar, you now have two - each with its own elements inside. Yes, that is more visual clutter, and yes that is really different than Windows' task bar from a UI design perspective.
Clutter? Have you seen the average Windows user's system tray? And what are you defining as other OSes? Windows? OS X? OS X uses a bar and a dock. So, that's two out of three that have two screen elements. Except GNOME != Linux. In fact, as I've said before, I think GNOME sucks. You can use KDE which has one taskbar, a la Windows if you're so inclined. You can use Openbox which by default has no static screen elements, of course, that's a more advanced window manager that I wouldn't expect an "average user" to use.
Quote from CobraA1 »
On my main system, it's virtually 100% internet uptime, the internet icon is useless. Only on my mobile system is it actually useful. The bluetooth icon just tells me I have bluetooth installed. Considering that I already know that and my bluetooth stuff works automatically, it's equally useless. Updates are only really important when I need to reboot the system. Otherwise just make it automatic and hide it unless it needs user input.
Every icon is a little bit of added clutter. If something is there, it should be something the user uses all the time. Occasional use items should be hidden by default.
Yes, I understand the mentality that everybody wants as much information as you can throw at them - it's common in geeks, because it's a part of what they do. Geeks love to have gazillions of stuff telling them exactly what their system is doing.
But I'm not talking about us. I'm not talking about geeks. I'm not even talking about myself.
I'm talking about the average joe, the typical mother or grandparents. The people who only check email or surf the Internet.
Again. You criticize Linux (GNOME, really) for something that Windows is worse with. Practically every other program you install in Windows plasters its face all over your systray. And three things is not "gazillions of stuff." It's three things. Less than you'd find on a Windows taskbar. And you can easily remove them if you so wish. Right Click > Remove from panel.
Quote from CobraA1 »
Games I've played in other distros, educational utilities, archaic utilities that the Linux professor uses. Sometimes the occasional useful utility that I find on the Internet.
Don't know off the top of my head, but it's happened. I've found stuff that isn't in the distro.
Uhuh. Some obscure games, educational utilities and archaic utilities used by professors. How does that impact the average user?
Quote from CobraA1 »
Have you ever met my mother? She doesn't even know where Word stores its files, and I've been trying to teach her the basics of file systems (which to me seems absolutely trivial) for years. You wanna teach her how to compile an application? Good luck, you'll need it. And plenty of Aspirin.
Requiring users to occasionally compile applications is not acceptable for a mature desktop OS.
You don't need to compile the vast majority of anything you'd ever want to use. Other than obscure games, obscure educational programs, and programs for your CS course in college, of course. Does your mom need to use those? If not, I'd say with 99.99% certainty that she'll never have to compile a thing.
I'm a pretty heavy power user when it comes to Linux, and I've only ever had to compile two things. One was a library that Cartographer (The Minecraft mapper) needed. The other was that I needed to compile ncmpcpp because the repository version didn't come compiled with Visualizer support (It added a ~10MB dependency for a feature that most people would never use, so they left it out of the repo version), not that the "average user" would ever touch ncmpcpp to begin with. And having to compile ncmpcpp was just because I was being stubborn and wanted a silly, frivolous visualizer.
"This isn't Windows! It's too hard!" That way of thinking is extremely closed-minded.
Hey, guess what? All kinds of people use the products we create, including "close-minded" people. And talking about training isn't IMO about being close-minded, it's about how easily somebody can pick up the new platform.
The point here is that users can speed things up if they want with the command line, which isn't that hard to use.
Sit a new user in front of something and measure how long it takes for them to figure it out - that's how you basically measure ease of use. The problem with command lines tends to be that a new user doesn't have a clue what to do. You need to teach new users a lot of information to get them to the point where they can be confident enough to use it - command lines take a lot of training.
That's impossible.
Only to a mind stuck in the CLI, which is convinced that CLIs are the only method of batch automation.
I've rotated a dozen photos using Windows Live Photo Gallery with only a few clicks. Select the photos I want to rotate, then click the rotate button. Batch photo rotation without touching a CLI. I've also used the Task Scheduler to automate regularly scheduled tasks. You're dreaming if you think a CLI is the only way to perform batch operations or automate tasks.
You'd have to code in every possible scenario for things the user would want to automate.
Or I could design something like Task Scheduler that is generic enough to be used for most tasks.
You can't use Linux and expect it to work like Windows.
You can't expect an OS to become popular with a steep learning curve. Doesn't matter if I'm transitioning from Windows or another OS. I'm not necessarily saying make it work like Windows, I'm just saying using good UI design principles can help.
You're contradicting yourself, as well. You're saying that Linux is bad because it's difficult to remap keys a certain way, and yet you give Windows the same criticism and accept it as okay.
If you're going to implement a feature at all, it's best to implement it cleanly and without quirky behavior. I'm not really getting that impression from the Linux keyboard controls.
Clutter? Have you seen the average Windows user's system tray?
Have I taken 1000 data points and averaged them out? No. Have you?
Windows 7 actually improved the system tray, actually. It does a better job at hiding unused icons and allows the user to drag icons into the arrow to hide unused icons.
OS X uses a bar and a dock.
And yes, that adds clutter. Although Mac OS does use transparency in the dock to lessen the effects of adding more clutter, as well as to differentiate between the purposes of the menu and the dock.
I've only ever had to compile two things.
That's two things too many. Unless the user is a developer, the user should have to compile precisely zero applications.
One was a library that Cartographer (The Minecraft mapper) needed.
. . . and I didn't need to compile a library for the Windows version of Cartographer. Or the visualizer for any music players in Windows. You make my point nicely, thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
What a nice flamewar to be in.
I say Windows is best, but you DO know that most movies are made in FCP? Yeah. Not Sony Vegas, Final Cut Pro. If a Mac isn't avalible, movie editors will use Primere. And by movies, I mean cinema.
Windowsssssssss
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Keep in mind that if your signature asks me to click on something, I will not, and just happily AdBlock it. I don't care about your dragons, sorry.
Although I voted for Windows in the poll because it's actually widely compatible with stuff, Linux is otherwise superior. Having used Macs regularly for years before I became a Windows user, I think I have the right to say that Macs suck.
Although I voted for Windows in the poll because it's actually widely compatible with stuff, Linux is otherwise superior. Having used Macs regularly for years before I became a Windows user, I think I have the right to say that Macs suck.
**** Yeah.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Keep in mind that if your signature asks me to click on something, I will not, and just happily AdBlock it. I don't care about your dragons, sorry.
People that critically think about their choice in PC and end up going with Mac, do not pick Mac for the hardware specs.
You've contributed nothing to the conversation. Congratulations.
You're very amusing; the very stereotype of a nerd that spends their day anti-social behind a monitor; self-aggrandizing and arrogant towards anyone that undermines you, holding onto a grudge all at the same time. You're such a character.
You argue that people are choosing Mac because of the specs; thats why you posed that image which is entirely true; only an idiot would pay premiums for inferior hardware. FACT is peopel dont chose Mac for hardware -its entirely related to the topic.
For a nerd, you're pretty dull-witted.
U MAD?
MOD EDIT: Try not to make posts like this. If it doesn't contribute to the discussion its spam (and baiting other forum users).
The components on Mac PCB's consistently come from high-quality manufacturers. I don't know who assembles the boards (I assume apple does that in house), but I know the components put on those boards are of superior quality to most other manufacturers. Go look at some iFixit tear downs, and you'll see what I mean. They have the manufacturers labeled for you right there.
No, it wouldn't, but it would still be able to perform the tasks that most consumers would require of it. Very few people buy laptops to do anything more than browse the web, play videos, and occasionally play some flash games, and these systems will handle that just fine for years to come.
I know that if my dad's Gateway wasn't going to fall apart in a few months (it's about 3 or 4 years old now, and Gateway has really gone downhill from what it used to be) it would still be able to do what my dad required it to do. Just because hardware becomes obsolete, doesn't mean it quits working.
One of the things Apple spends a good amount of money on (and consequently why their products are more expensive), is research and development into the best way of bringing a consistent, smooth, and pleasant user experience across their range of products. It may cost a lot of money, but the user experience is worth it to many people who buy in to Apple's ecosystem. No other manufacturer can provide that. The other features, which are indeed found on many modern laptops, aren't found on all of them, and are [even today] often reserved for somewhat higher end models. But even if a laptop has all of those features, they never blend well, because the manufacturer does a half-assed job of integrating all of those features in convenient and easy to use manner. You can't blame them, because OEM's other than Apple only deal with hardware, while Apple deals with software as well. But it doesn't excuse the fact that Apple laptops offer a better user experience because of it.
Of course other manufacturers offer all of those things in a warranty. It's one way they make good sales. But most people don't end up needing or using that accidental damage protection, because people who buy expensive laptops are going to take good care of them, and people who buy cheap ones would rather just get a new one (or have the person who bought it for them get them a new one) since it's easier than going through the hassle of dealing with customer service and warranty offices.
The OEM's offer those services, yes, but they don't make it easy to take advantage of them. For the most part, it's all just for show (granted, those services are there, but it's a massive pain in the ass to make use of them).
Apple on the other hand, offers to replace or fix the laptop if the laptop fails from simply being used. That makes perfect sense to me, because a manufacturer shouldn't be offering to replace your laptop if you spilled coffee on it. That's ridiculous, and the manufacturers has no way of knowing for sure if it was really an accident. Hence why it's so hard to take advantage of accidental damage protection.
Applecare may be expensive, but if you actually take care of the things you buy, then it'll be exactly what you need (though honestly, Apple products are so reliable that you don't need Applecare in most cases. It's only necessary when you really make good use of the product, like my friend did with his Macbook Pro).
They're over priced if you don't like paying for quality. And by quality, I'm not just referring to the laptop. When you buy an apple product, your buying the service and reliability that comes with it. There's a reason Apple only charged $30 for OS X Snow Leopard, while Microsoft charges hundreds of dollars for Windows 7.
Again, accidental damage protection is a farce. The manufacturer has so many loopholes through which to get out of covering your accidental damage to their product, that it may as well not even exist.
Also, again, you're paying for more than just hardware when you buy a Macbook.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAgain, you have no specifics or facts on who manufactures Macbook parts. You have no idea how they compare to other hardware. You only "know" they are better.
Uh, you bought a gateway. They were shitty when they first started, and are still shitty now. Macbook Pro's are high quality because they are better than a gateway? A speak-n-spell is better than a gateway.
Provide what?! What user experience? What do you experience when you buy a mac that is so different from buying from somewhere else? Last time I checked apples shopping cart software didn't cause my panties to drop and spend an additional $1,500 for an "ecosystem".
Uh, they are found EASILY on a WIDE range of PC laptops. And wtf do you mean they don't blend well? The features on my laptop work 100%. Features don't blend well? You are pulling random and vague accusations out of your ass.
Last time I checked I wasn't retarded. Let me check ... I can turn my wireless on and off. Check. I can use my trackpad. Check. Webcam turns on as expected. Check.
The other manufacturers offer it. Apple doesn't offer it at all, no matter what.
So you are saying that out of everyone who has owned a macbook pro ... none of them have accidentally damaged their laptops? Yeah, that is very probable.
Again, talking out of your ass. My brother has had his dell completely replaced TWICE! The only "catch" was that he had to send it in, and didn't have a laptop till the new one arrived.
So does EVERY major OEM warranty. Nothing special about that.
Uh, that is what makes it amazing. They WILL replace it if you accidentally damage it. There is a limit on how many times you are able to (with dell's $300 warranty it is 2 times within 2 years).
Yeah, everything Apple is expensive. The warrant is $350 for a BASIC 3 year warranty. You can get on-site warranties for that price with other OEM's. Again, another over-priced apple product.
We've already established that apples service and warranty pale in comparison to other OEM's in both price, longevity, as well as coverage.
They sell it for $30 because they gouged you an extra $1,500 on their hardware!
You are full of ****, I know PLENTY of people who have used theirs. And yes you can even cheat the system with it quite easily.
What else?
So far you have listed:
1) Better hardware; but nothing to prove or validate this.
2) The buying experience; whatever the hell that means.
3) ... I don't see anything else.
You can't list applecare, because for one it's not even included in the already over-priced cost of a MBP. And secondly, it is horrible in comparison to other OEM service warranties. With dell you can get on-site service with accidental damage for the amount you have to dish out for applecare.
Saying that you "pay for more than the hardware when you buy a Mac" is hipster nonsense. Apple's hardware may be good. Above average, even, in some cases. I don't think anyone's really arguing that. The fact is that piece for piece, Apple is overpriced. No amount of "ecosystem" can justify that unless you're completely brainwashed.
I'll give you an "experience": go buy hardware equivalent to what Apple crams in theirs and save 30%+. Not only do you save money, you get to learn something about computers.
Falling into lava pool (lucky you have a bucket of water); 4 hearts,
Telling a hissing creeper "No!" - priceless.
You've contributed nothing to the conversation. Congratulations.
You're very amusing; the very stereotype of a nerd that spends their day anti-social behind a monitor; self-aggrandizing and arrogant towards anyone that undermines you, holding onto a grudge all at the same time. You're such a character.
You argue that people are choosing Mac because of the specs; thats why you posed that image which is entirely true; only an idiot would pay premiums for inferior hardware. FACT is peopel dont chose Mac for hardware -its entirely related to the topic.
For a nerd, you're pretty dull-witted.
Falling into lava pool (lucky you have a bucket of water); 4 hearts,
Telling a hissing creeper "No!" - priceless.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSo if it's not for hardware, please tell me what you choose them for? Don't say their OS, because you can run a Hackintosh PC.
I never even implied that what you said was unrelated to the topic. I said it added nothing to the discussion. Why? Because if you would have taken the time to read, you'd have noticed that this point has already been brought up. You restating it just wastes space.
How am I holding a grudge? And have you stopped to notice the hypocrisy here? You're acting just as arrogant as I am. And it's funny how you assert that I spend all day behind a monitor being antisocial when, for starters, you have no idea how much I actually spend at my computer, and secondly, one can be social while at a computer. They're not mutually exclusive. This forum, even, is a place to communicate with others. Talking to you here makes me social by definition.
It's unbecoming of you, getting all bent out of shape just because I said something mean to you. You seem to have pretty tender feelings. How do you manage to survive with all those mean people out in the world?
If you want a oversized iPod get a Mac. *nothing wrong about it*
If you want a headache get Linux.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumBut, it also seems this is about OSes, so I'll talk about that a bit . . .
I haven't had much experience with Macs, to be honest. Since the OS is only really bought with the hardware, I haven't had much experience with it outside occasionally using one at the library.
Linux I've had some experience with - and frankly, it's just not up to the ease of use of Windows, even with the latest revisions of Ubuntu. The "start" key has to be mapped via a tweak in a configuration panel, not via the key mapper. By default, Gnome has two bars, likely because it is displaying more information than anybody really needs. Items in the bars have to be unlocked individually, making them into a lot more micromanagement than Windows 7.
Linux is made with the philosophy that customization is more important than anything else. Even ease of use.
Unfortunately, I think they missed most people with that. Geeks love to customize their stuff to death - but most other people don't. While most people like the ability to "personalize" their desktop, it's more along the lines of branding it to say "hey, this is mine" and not along the lines of "look at how much I can mess around with everything."
Linux also still likes to do some stuff in the command line. Why? Because the people who designed Linux decided that most people are in the automation business and love making scripts.
Problem is, that's not really most people either. Most people want a computer that just works - they don't want to tinker around with its innards. Any automation that has to be done should IMO be built into the OS from the beginning, or available as a software application. Only developers should really have to worry about the automation stuff.
So IMO even some of the most "friendly" Linux distros today still miss the boat when it comes to ease of use for most users.
Linux is also missing the mark when it comes to downloadable stuff online. When you go off the beaten path away from your package manager into web land, you're in for a rough ride. Some software is only for certain distros (and often not yours). Some software requires a bunch of dependencies of strange libraries. Some software isn't even compiled - you literally have to play developer and grab a bunch of dev tools and compile it.
I still run Linux in a VM occasionally to see what's happening there, but honestly I don't see using it as my primary OS. I prefer to stay on a platform I know most users are using.
Well, I think that really depends on what we define as "ease of use." Ease of use is not the same as familiarity. People seem to make the mistake a lot. A lot of people argue that Windows is "easy" things that aren't Windows are not easy because they don't work like Windows. That really gets under my skin. It's not hard, it's just different. Some things are easier to do in Windows than in Linux. Some things are easier to do in Linux than Windows.
No. This I strong disagree with. There are plenty of things that are worlds easier with a command line that simply wouldn't be possible with a GUI without needlessly complicating the interface. It's not really possible to do the kinds of automation that a shell script can provide with a GUI. If you tried to do it, I'd almost guarantee you'd just wind up with a GUI for writing scripts.
Furthermore, in a lot of modern distributions, you never really have to use the command line unless you get some system problems. Any task that a normal user wants to do can, most of the time, be done completely from a GUI. The CLI-phobic (which is a pretty irrational fear), don't have to touch a command line if they don't want to.
I'm not sure what you mean by the start key. Are you talking about the Windows/Super key being used to open the applications menu? You can easily set that in the keyboard shortcuts. I'm not sure what you mean by "key mapper" if you're not talking about that keyboard shortcuts dialog.
And GNOME, which in my opinion sucks away, has two bars for space reasons. The default set-up is the application menu and system try on the top and open windows on the bottom. It's really not any different than Windows' task bar. Windows' task bar often winds up much too cluttered, at least in my opinion. I'm not really sure what information would be on the panel that you wouldn't want. Internet connection status, Bluetooth status if you have Bluetooth, clock, Update Manager if it's running. The "useless" things are only going to be on the panel if you put them there yourself. Then again, I haven't used GNOME for a couple of months, so things may have changed since then, and I may be totally wrong here.
I'm not sure what applications you'd want that wouldn't be in the repositories. Just about anything you'd want is in there. The only things I'd imagine you wouldn't be able to find would be small, obscure projects and custom builds of programs, and those are things only someone who has no problem compiling this would likely want.
Not that compiling is really hard. All the "dev tools" are generally in one build-essential package and dependencies are usually listed on the site your downloading from. After that, you just run "make && make install" and nine times out of ten, you'd good to do. Of course, there are programs that are an absolute nightmare to install from source.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThat distinction being made - I stand by that quoted statement.
Sorry, no dice.
Yes. It is different. And hard.
In fact, being different can make it hard - training new users and retraining users of different systems is actually an important part of UI design. Something Linux devs seem to have forgotten.
99.9% of those things are tasks only developers should ever have to worry about, and regular users should never have to touch.
They should be automated by the OS or by third party software. Not by trying to teach all users how to write shell scripts.
Yes, blame it on fear. That's it, that's the problem. They must all be fearful.
Sorry, blaming fear is not a solution to a broken UI.
I was writing on a system that had the word "start" on the keyboard. Sorry, didn't bother to look up the actual name.
Go ahead, try mapping the Windows key with the keyboard shortcuts dialog. Tell me how well it works. Chances are, you have to combine it with another key - you can't use it by itself. Linux has a keyboard handler that gives special treatment to modifier keys, and making them act like regular keys is difficult.
In Windows, the Windows key can act both ways - it acts like a regular key if you tap it by itself, and can be combined with other keys as a shortcut modifier. Granted, there's not an easy way to remap it in Windows, but I can guarantee you that people trying Linux for the first time after using Windows for a long time are gonna try to make it act a bit more like Windows.
It's one more visual item added to the lowest level, which adds clutter. Where in most other OSes you have one bar, you now have two - each with its own elements inside. Yes, that is more visual clutter, and yes that is really different than Windows' task bar from a UI design perspective.
On my main system, it's virtually 100% internet uptime, the internet icon is useless. Only on my mobile system is it actually useful. The bluetooth icon just tells me I have bluetooth installed. Considering that I already know that and my bluetooth stuff works automatically, it's equally useless. Updates are only really important when I need to reboot the system. Otherwise just make it automatic and hide it unless it needs user input.
Every icon is a little bit of added clutter. If something is there, it should be something the user uses all the time. Occasional use items should be hidden by default.
Yes, I understand the mentality that everybody wants as much information as you can throw at them - it's common in geeks, because it's a part of what they do. Geeks love to have gazillions of stuff telling them exactly what their system is doing.
But I'm not talking about us. I'm not talking about geeks. I'm not even talking about myself.
I'm talking about the average joe, the typical mother or grandparents. The people who only check email or surf the Internet.
Games I've played in other distros, educational utilities, archaic utilities that the Linux professor uses. Sometimes the occasional useful utility that I find on the Internet.
Don't know off the top of my head, but it's happened. I've found stuff that isn't in the distro.
Have you ever met my mother? She doesn't even know where Word stores its files, and I've been trying to teach her the basics of file systems (which to me seems absolutely trivial) for years. You wanna teach her how to compile an application? Good luck, you'll need it. And plenty of Aspirin.
Requiring users to occasionally compile applications is not acceptable for a mature desktop OS.
"This isn't Windows! It's too hard!" That way of thinking is extremely closed-minded. Is OS X hard because it has a dock? What's this "Finder" thing? Why aren't my windows in my task bar? What's going on? If someone has never seen a Mac before and only ever used Windows, I'd be willing to bet that would confuse them. And yet, OS X is hailed for it "usability".
The point here is that users can speed things up if they want with the command line, which isn't that hard to use. And as I've said, regular users don't have to bother with the CLI. They can do a large majority of things the same, slow, GUI, Windows way if they want. They can rename a folder of files manually if they want. I'll be over here using prename and getting the same job done in a couple of seconds. If they want to move all the picture out of a folder and into another, they can select them all manually, but I'd be more apt to use `mv *.jpg picutres/`
That's impossible. You'd have to code in every possible scenario for things the user would want to automate. And if you're going to give them options, it would have to be an extremely complex dialog to the point that user would just be writing shell scripts anyway, only with a GUI.
I always used Super+Space. I hit Super by itself on accident far too often. It always got on my nerves with windows.
Again, you come back to, "this isn't Windows! This is hard!" You can't use Linux and expect it to work like Windows. People don't expect OS X to work like Windows, do they? And no one complains about that.
You're contradicting yourself, as well. You're saying that Linux is bad because it's difficult to remap keys a certain way, and yet you give Windows the same criticism and accept it as okay.
Clutter? Have you seen the average Windows user's system tray? And what are you defining as other OSes? Windows? OS X? OS X uses a bar and a dock. So, that's two out of three that have two screen elements. Except GNOME != Linux. In fact, as I've said before, I think GNOME sucks. You can use KDE which has one taskbar, a la Windows if you're so inclined. You can use Openbox which by default has no static screen elements, of course, that's a more advanced window manager that I wouldn't expect an "average user" to use.
Again. You criticize Linux (GNOME, really) for something that Windows is worse with. Practically every other program you install in Windows plasters its face all over your systray. And three things is not "gazillions of stuff." It's three things. Less than you'd find on a Windows taskbar. And you can easily remove them if you so wish. Right Click > Remove from panel.
Uhuh. Some obscure games, educational utilities and archaic utilities used by professors. How does that impact the average user?
You don't need to compile the vast majority of anything you'd ever want to use. Other than obscure games, obscure educational programs, and programs for your CS course in college, of course. Does your mom need to use those? If not, I'd say with 99.99% certainty that she'll never have to compile a thing.
I'm a pretty heavy power user when it comes to Linux, and I've only ever had to compile two things. One was a library that Cartographer (The Minecraft mapper) needed. The other was that I needed to compile ncmpcpp because the repository version didn't come compiled with Visualizer support (It added a ~10MB dependency for a feature that most people would never use, so they left it out of the repo version), not that the "average user" would ever touch ncmpcpp to begin with. And having to compile ncmpcpp was just because I was being stubborn and wanted a silly, frivolous visualizer.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumHey, guess what? All kinds of people use the products we create, including "close-minded" people. And talking about training isn't IMO about being close-minded, it's about how easily somebody can pick up the new platform.
Sit a new user in front of something and measure how long it takes for them to figure it out - that's how you basically measure ease of use. The problem with command lines tends to be that a new user doesn't have a clue what to do. You need to teach new users a lot of information to get them to the point where they can be confident enough to use it - command lines take a lot of training.
Only to a mind stuck in the CLI, which is convinced that CLIs are the only method of batch automation.
I've rotated a dozen photos using Windows Live Photo Gallery with only a few clicks. Select the photos I want to rotate, then click the rotate button. Batch photo rotation without touching a CLI. I've also used the Task Scheduler to automate regularly scheduled tasks. You're dreaming if you think a CLI is the only way to perform batch operations or automate tasks.
Or I could design something like Task Scheduler that is generic enough to be used for most tasks.
You can't expect an OS to become popular with a steep learning curve. Doesn't matter if I'm transitioning from Windows or another OS. I'm not necessarily saying make it work like Windows, I'm just saying using good UI design principles can help.
If you're going to implement a feature at all, it's best to implement it cleanly and without quirky behavior. I'm not really getting that impression from the Linux keyboard controls.
Have I taken 1000 data points and averaged them out? No. Have you?
Windows 7 actually improved the system tray, actually. It does a better job at hiding unused icons and allows the user to drag icons into the arrow to hide unused icons.
And yes, that adds clutter. Although Mac OS does use transparency in the dock to lessen the effects of adding more clutter, as well as to differentiate between the purposes of the menu and the dock.
That's two things too many. Unless the user is a developer, the user should have to compile precisely zero applications.
. . . and I didn't need to compile a library for the Windows version of Cartographer. Or the visualizer for any music players in Windows. You make my point nicely, thanks.
I say Windows is best, but you DO know that most movies are made in FCP? Yeah. Not Sony Vegas, Final Cut Pro. If a Mac isn't avalible, movie editors will use Primere. And by movies, I mean cinema.
Windowsssssssss
**** Yeah.
Yes
U MAD?
MOD EDIT: Try not to make posts like this. If it doesn't contribute to the discussion its spam (and baiting other forum users).