Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Guy goes off on Apple Fanboys
77lolmac77
Member UncommonPosts: 492
*warning* Wall of text here but a very good and true read*
"To start with, Apple fanboys are the worst kind of fanboys. They get horrendously rabid toward anyone who even thinks about not liking Apple slightly. They're ALWAYS first in a flamewar and ALWAYS the one who comes out toasted to a crisp when someone flames them back but packs their flames with something more than some guy they worship says. In other words, they're flaming with actual facts, not pure, unadulterated marketing bullshit that Steve Jobs tells them. Despite Apple fanboys thinking they are breaking from the mainstream, they are more sheeplike than Microsoft fanboys, as they cannopt form a single thought for themselves as stated earlier in my post. They can ONLY parrot what Steve Jobs tells them. Next, they get really pissed off, and I mean REALLY pissed off when someone disagrees with them about Apple or their products. What's worse is they'll immediately make assumptions about the person who dares speak about the perfect Steve jobs and his cult. The most common is that anyone who says that Macs are overpriced and not really packing anything useful (An absolute truth, btw. Macs have been that way since 1984. Nothing's changed in 26 years.) are usually immediately branded a Bill Gates boot-licker. Note how the Mac vs. PC ads REALLY are. IT's ALL about OS X and Windows. NOT about Macs versus PCs. Why? Because the hardware these days is the same architecture. Except in this case the PC would be the one humilating the Macs. Even software-wise: OS X vs. Windows as an ad, if they were truthful I'd STILL find it dubious that OS X would be able to really humiliate Windows all those times. Not that Windows is really worthy of praise. My post isn;t about Windows, though. I rather like the Mac vs. PC vs. Linux ads Novell did because they actually presented something factual and still came off as entertaining. Something Apple couldn't pull off if they tried. When it comes down to actual merits of operating systems Apple is at the bottom of the heap. LAcking any truly useful features, any sort of productive software library, and restricted to a proprietary PC so it can't really show its power, assuming it has any, OS X is almost a textbook example of how NOT to implement UNIX. Then Apple goes and forks or buys out some open source projects already created and tries to pass them off as their own creation. Like Webkit. Webkit is HARDLY Apple's creation considering almost all of it is derived from KDE's original web engine. Oops. Not only that, but Apple completely MUTILATED said web engine and made it work like crap. Web pages not loading properly, if at all, just the top of the iceberg. Let's not even broach the subject of code theft, which Apple did to supply the vast majority of OS X's code. OS X is the #1 reason why I NEVER license my code under the BSD license. Because if I make something great, I don't want companies like Apple locking it down and passing it off as theirs. Darwin is a textbook example of how to have your hard work exploited for profit and with no credit. Brings me to my next point: WHY is Apple so hell-bent on restricting their users so oppressively anyways? iPhone doesn't allow non-Apple blessed software, wars against jailbreakers, OS X is licensed so that no one can install it on anything but Macs (Anti-trust, anyone?), the iPhone 4 restrictions got the DoJ's attention for a very good reason: Apple even went so far as to explicitly block competition from the iPhone in the form of Flash. Then goes the extra mile by actually DICTATING how people were meant to program for the device, including what language they could use. Cue the Apple fanboys coming out in droves and playing yes-men to Steve Jobs and regurgitating his proven lies about it being about security and standards and quality. Three things Apple doesn't have they accused Adobe of having so they could keep their fanboys from realizing the real reason behind it: They cannot stand a true rival on their own platform. So they performed a borderline anti-competitive act by banning Flash outright because they want people to only use their proprietary SDK, Cocoa. Why? Because if people don't use Cocoa, Apple doesn't get to lord their power over their apps, and they get MONEY just from people seeking the privilege of ATTEMPTING to get an app in the app store. Best of luck to them getting past the arbitrary rules Apple imposes almost on a case by case basis. (Note: Android, as of 2.2, has Flash, just another thing propelling Android FAR ahead of anything Apple's made to date.) And my final thought, Apple is NOT the grand innovator it or its fanboys puff it up to be. All those "innovations" are innovations on some other company's part. Apple didn't invent or implement, GUI, motion-sensing, multitouch, or desktop compositing first. The iPhone is the worst offender, really. Apple fanboys left and right acted like there wasn't even a SMARTPHONE before Apple made one. Apparently the Blackberry and Treo, smartphones that existed for YEARS before the iPhone was even conceptualized, never existed until St. Steve said they could. Of course, the iPhone suffered from the typical Apple treatment: Lacking even standard basic features while still charging hundreds more for it. Apple fanboys didn't notice. Steve Jobs told them to love the iPhone and call it revolutionary. So they did. Cue a megaton of bloggers calling the iPhone the EXACT SAME WORD over and over again: Revolutionary. Except... it wasn't. IT didn't do anything beyond gimmickry that things like Treo or Blackberry didn't already do years before. I remember one blogger who was all OMFGLMAO WEB BROWSER until someone pointed out web browsers have been on even NON-smartphones for years. Then he shut up, realizing Apple did nothing new on the iPhone except jack up the price and pass that off as innovation.
What I said above is mostly opinion, but it's only the TIP OF THE ICEBERG about Apple. They are actually worse than Microsoft. The biggest difference between the two is Microsoft actually has the balls to admit its a scumbag company and that it doesn't care."
Read this earlier and just laughed
Comments
I'm looking for the post before this one where the Apple fanboy was the first.
http://www.itok.net/blog/index.php/2011/04/mac-vs-pc/
source link
the whole graph is Mac biased
they base compatibility off of how Mac can run Windows but Windows can't run Mac OSX
MAC cannot run windows, Bootcamp runs Windows not the MAC OS
Also If you compare the software on the market for a Windows PC and a MAC it is not even close. Windows Wins by millions if not billions of software options.
Sooner or Later
As far as hardware goes, a Mac is a PC.
You can run Mac OSX on a PC. In the days when you can download OSX off bit-torrent, all you had to do is use a program similar to Bootcamp.