So after just recently watching a new Mac commercial I realized that I hate Mac a lot more than I had realized. Mac's only angle is to bash on Microsoft. I see Mac as an elementary school bully, beating up an innocent school kid. Microsoft rarely, if at all, attacks Mac, then moves right on with it's commercial. Mac is officially a corporate bully.

I concur entirely.

I have never disliked Apple more than watching their marketing.

Kinda like how ID people can only attack evolution.
Maybe...If mirosoft was a 16 yr old that's been held back for ten years, and Apple is his cubby mate. But Microsoft couldn't care less because he's too busy easily getting all the 2nd grade tail he wants, let alone acknowledge his existence.

haterboys

I actually find some of them funny.

Like the one where PC freezes. I find it brilliant to mock how windows just freezes out of nowhere.

Microsoft deserves to be bullied for its creation of annoyingware and bloatware like vista, and for its hiding of the 52GB of my hard disk that it stole for system restore until I resized it.

That said, Mac is still an annoying piece of crap. I am surprised at how many people like them though.

It gets worse when you have the system restores to minimum and then GBs of space start disappearing again.
I'm still fighting to get over 12GBs myself. Dunno where they are. Like I view C:/ properties and then I see properties of folders inside C:/ and the sum doesn't match

That's why you learn to format your system. And then make images to retain data.

This.

Not that.

I love my Mac, and laugh (in my head) to the commercials. The Operating System is great, though I'm just as excited for Windows 7 as the next guy.

Mac's a bully, Microsoft is awesome, Mac is Eh. That said, I find some of the commercials funny.

It's cool to hate 'The Man' (Microsoft), but they're not that bad. Those gigabytes you're whining about now you won't be whining about when your computer breaks and all you'll need to do is select a date to fix it. Windows can run almost anything, is compatible with everything. OS's like XP are fast, easy to use, and don't generally have many issues. Also, unlike Apple, Microsoft doesn't sell computers for double the price of the hardware just because a computer has Windows on it.

Compatibility is pretty much the only issue I have with the Mac, but that will eventually change over time. I've never have it froze, though I've had a few programs freeze, but not often. Other then that, I've had no problems.

personally, I'm still wondering why everyone complains about Vista bluescreening and freezing. i haven't bluescreened since windows 98 personally and i freeze on vista and xp no more than 4-5 annually(HARDLY anything to complain about - i stub my toe more often than that). just what exactly are you people doing to your poor computers(i wouldn't feel like working either if you hit me with a baseball bat)?

i think people are still tunnel-visioned on pre-sp1 vista. which i admittedly have not used. the ONLY bad things i can complain about is how i can't unzip to 'program files'(but i think i'll live...) and how ONE of 4 printers did not have the proper drivers to run on vista 32-bit.


os x is awesome. INCREDIBLY intuitive - i was running one of the audio-production programs(i forget the name) without having any problems performing any of the necessary commands on my first try on os x. personally, the fanboism boils down to preference. do you prefer extensibility(windows)? or do you prefer simplicity(mac)? fyi, this is the exact same comparison with firefox and chrome. i personally prefer the former(in both comparisons).

ps, i find the mac commercials hilarious. blatant lies(if you know better), but funny nevertheless.

Why does no one ever take into account that Microsoft once sold Windows XP? I've been using that for over 6 years and I have never had a crash or a blue screen of death that didn't result from my shitty programming.

I applaude Cent for mentioning it.

I think it is partly that they don't want you to unzip to program files (or the windows folder either). They don't want anything but actual installers writing in either of those folders, and I think in general they don't want non-Microsoft programs to be writing in the windows folder either.

On a related note, whenever a program doesn't need to run the installer or program as an admin (or doesn't have an installer), I usually don't install in Program Files but instead put it in a Programs folder that I made under my user's folder.

That doesn't happen.

ya, i understand entirely. its all part of the UAC(i actually LOVE this thing, i've randomly had this thing pop up against some piece of malware that dodged my anti-spyware programs - don't know how bad that would have been, but i wouldn't have found it otherwise). lol, like i said, i'll live, i use a seperate folder now. i just wished it had told me why winrar wouldn't unzip there(seems like NONE of the unzipping programs query for administrator privileges).

btw, speaking of Macs... When Mac OS 10.5 (I think that was the version number) was first released, there was a particularly nasty bug combo between file moves and wireless networking that I heard about. In the regular GUI file manager if during a file move the destination became unavailable, it would ignore that the copying failed and delete the files from the source anyway (including the rest of the files after the first failed one). If using a wireless network connection at max speed (which would be typical when copying or moving files across the network), the connection would gradually slow down more and more until the computer would get disconnected from the wireless network.

So basically, before they fixed it, moving files of at least a certain total size to another computer on the wireless network was guaranteed to get your files after a certain point in the move process deleted. The fact that bugs like that didn't get caught before release doesn't make me want to get a computer that has their OS.

Yeah yeah, so they jumped the gun bit with Vista. I personally have never been blue screened, and have no missing storage. As for UAC... When programs need to access restricted files repeatedly it gets a bit annoying, but other than that I see it as useful.

You mean windows PC don't freeze?

Windows OS doesn't freeze unless you did something wrong. But of course, we don't make mistakes.

Go into Control Panel > File and Folder Properties > View, and set it to "show hidden files and folders" and unclick "hide protected operating system files" Then go into C:\ and you should have 2 files, hiberfil.sys and pagefile.sys which are each like 4GB. Also, you should see a System Volume Information folder, which is the place where your backups are stored. If you need to access this folder (which I don't recommend) you right click it, go to properties, then security, and you'll have to change the permissions for your user/group to "full control." I advise not bothering with that though, just so you can't accidentally screw it up.

I wouldn't call Microsoft awsome, but I generally like their stuff. They should take a page out of the linux book and go for making everything within the OS easily customizible, instead of catering to the people that don't understand computers too well and want everything automatically done for them. Yeah, things like windows Update are nice, but when my computer eats 52 GB for system restore without me knowing it, and the only way to change that is through the MS DOS interface in Vista with an obscure command that isn't in the "help" section (when XP had it customizable with a pretty slider bar and everything...) that makes me subtract a few of Microsoft's brownie points.

I haven't had my copy of XP or Vista bluescreen/freeze on me. I found out that Vista actually allocates a larger array size than I ask for when I write C++, I went over the array size in one of my programs a few times and nothing bad happened and I was happy