PDA

View Full Version : Why Windows has the edge over the Mac (formerly 'Flame Away!...')


Apple][Forever
Sep 19, 2002, 12:05 PM
Hadn't seen this on the boards before (my apologies if this article's already been flamed to death) but this could be the WORST. ARTICLE. EVER.

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/komando/104.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

RBMaraman
Sep 19, 2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Apple][Forever
Hadn't seen this on the boards before (my apologies if this article's already been flamed to death) but this could be the WORST. ARTICLE. EVER.

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/komando/104.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

I read that article, and that lady is the stupidest person that has ever written a computer comparrison article! She doesn't know what the heck she is talking about! For God sakes, she suggested they put a floppy drive in the iMac! Can you believe that! Floppy drives are extremely out of date! She is just one of those stupid Windows users who absolutely love throwing there money at a stupid company like Microsoft. It's a shame that people like her are allowed to express their opinions in open forums. People like her should be beaten with Windows PC's being thrown at her by Mac users.

Hemingray
Sep 19, 2002, 12:49 PM
I think you guys are being WAY too harsh! After reading the article, I was surprised you guys jumped on her like that. She didn't all-out bash the Mac, she gave a few reasons why it's not the best for an all-business environment. (Keep in mind, she's not a regular consumer like the iMac is largely targeted towards.)

- One Button Mouse: I have to agree with her on this one. But if Apple never makes a two button mouse with scroll wheel, I won't get upset, because I know I can always purchase a 3rd party mouse that will do exactly what I need it to.

- 15" screen: That was a mistake on Apple's part, I think. I think they definitely should have loaned her the 17". What were they thinking?

- No floppy drive: This is the one complaint that I can honestly bash this person for. YOU MUST BE JOKING! You want a floppy? Fine, get a peripheral USB one! PCs have always been slow to drop legacy technologies, which is what puts these poor people in this mindset.

If the iMac's not for her, fine. Have fun on WinXP. :rolleyes:

Taft
Sep 19, 2002, 12:58 PM
I didn't think it was the "worst ever." That imbecile on Salon gets my vote for that one.

But this woman did seem confused on a few issues. Like Clarisworks...thats a pretty big editorial miss. Also, on the 15" monitor thing, she said she uses it for business purposes and is used to a 21" screen. Well the iMac is a consumer machine and Macs can be bought that are capable of attaching to her handy 21" monitor. I'd like her to find a Wintel all-in-one machine with a 21" flat screen that looks as good as the iMacs and doesn't cost a small fortune.

The other thing that surprised me was her assertion that everything is slower when switching between applications and for Photoshop filters. On app switching, I've never had a problem. I have more of a problem on my PIII 1400 MHz machine at work (things "stick" more when switching windows and apps). Also, I'd venture a guess that she was using a pre-Jaguar OS X. Her observations now would likely be a lot different.

And Photoshop filters usually perform very well against the Intel world. I'd like to see some benchmarks from her tests because I've seen other benchmarks and they keep up pretty well with x86 processors. Interesting...

Overall, I found this woman pretty uninformed for "the host of the nation's largest talk-radio show about computers and the Internet, heard on more than 400 stations in the United States." I'd expect more of a technological/professional view from a person who has such a wide audience.

Taft

Stike
Sep 19, 2002, 01:10 PM
How stupid can one be?
Well, either that, or that woman is being paid.

Ok, why does she say "speed matters" if she is writing with WORD? Switching between apps cant be as slow as described. And that one crash - well, obviously it was made by Netscape.

Silly to want a floppy. She has a ethernet, goddamn.. arg... If she does not achieve to setup Mail, well... says it all, right?

This site is hosted by MSN. So dont take that text for true. Not even a single word. Lies!! All lies!!!

That human being is a pain in my butt...

Rower_CPU
Sep 19, 2002, 01:42 PM
From my post in the Private Forums...

Ha...what a ridiculous "article". It's exactly the kind of tripe I'd expect on an MSN site.

Apple has a native e-mail application, but I couldn't get it to work. That was no big deal, really.
How the hell can you fail to get Mail to work? And she uses Netscape for mail?!?!!?

Windows Explorer's counterpart is Macintosh HD.
Oh really? Next thing you'll be telling us that Sherlock is the same as Network Neighborhood.

This particular machine has a 1.533-gigahertz chip from Advanced Micro Devices. With Intel chips approaching 3 gigahertz, my AMD machine is at the bottom of the Windows heap.
Hardly, that chip isn't even a year old. Many PC systems are still at or below 1 GHz.

*sigh*...Did we really expect anything different? It's funny how she begs not be flamed at the start of the article...

Str8edgepunker
Sep 19, 2002, 02:04 PM
This lady is an ^&$hole. First this quote: "Apple has a native e-mail application, but I couldn't get it to work." Anyone with a quarter of their brain barely functioning can get mail to work!

"The iMac will do most of what Windows does, but it often does things differently. "
-Of course it will, its a completely different OS! This just shows here complete stupidity as anyone would have realized that they are completely different, even those with less than a quarter of their brain barely functioning.

"The iMac came with ClarisWorks"
-What the heck are you talking about ClarisWorks for? They come with AppleWorks! And 90% of people who use office only use 10% of the features it offers, so it is great for home users.

"The most irritating drag came when jumping between Internet Explorer and Word. The iMac would sometimes take a couple seconds to make the switch."
-A couple seconds?! Try instantaneous. My dad owns an iMac and his switches from IE to Word almost instantly.

"But, golly, 800 MHz just isn't very fast today."
-THIS COMPUTER IS FOR HOME USE!

There are other issues such as price but I think I did enough bashing. This woman is stupid period. People like her deserve windoze and windoze deserves them.

However, one thing that is interesting is that most people are like that.

RogueLdr
Sep 19, 2002, 03:57 PM
Her immediate write-off of the iApps was the largest problem I had with her article. The iApps are what makes the iMac what it is. She does state that they are not useful for what she uses a computer for, but misses the point that that is not what the iMac is for. It would be like saying, "Gee, that Ferrari sure can handle and corner, but its performance as a pickup truck is woefully substandard."

She also seems to confuse familiarity with intuitiveness. The fact that she was able to use the iMac right out of the box, even though it is an entirely new operating system (to her), speaks very highly of the intuitiveness of the Mac OS.

And I must agree with other posters that being unable to make Mail work lends one to believe that she is not savvy in the least when it comes to learning new things on computer. I just looked at Mail, and after going to File>Import Mailboxes, was directed to which application I would like to import from. Not too difficult, IMHO.

RL

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 04:08 PM
To echo what Hemingray said... I don't understand what the big deal about this article is. She writes from the perspective of an average, non-techie computer user. Once again we see in this thread the sad mentality that Macs are perfect for everybody and are better than PCs in all situations, when that's not true. I give this woman credit for actually keeping an open mind and giving the iMac an honest try - and for writing a fair review.

I'll bet half of you knobheads didn't even read the article.

Alex

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by RogueLdr
And I must agree with other posters that being unable to make Mail work lends one to believe that she is not savvy in the least when it comes to learning new things on computer. I just looked at Mail, and after going to File>Import Mailboxes, was directed to which application I would like to import from. Not too difficult, IMHO.
I've heard numerous reports of Mail.app failing to launch, crashing abnormally, etc. The author doesn't provide enough information to ascertain whether her failure to get Mail to work was her fault. I would be surprised if she were not able to configure it. Mail -> Preferences... she's obviously not that stupid.

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Taft
The other thing that surprised me was her assertion that everything is slower when switching between applications and for Photoshop filters. On app switching, I've never had a problem. I have more of a problem on my PIII 1400 MHz machine at work (things "stick" more when switching windows and apps). Also, I'd venture a guess that she was using a pre-Jaguar OS X. Her observations now would likely be a lot different.
She said she got her iMac in May. Like most non-techies, she probably didn't get a RAM upgrade and left the machine in its default configuration of (I presume) 256MB. In that case, the sluggishness she was experiencing is no surprise at all. When a simple MP3 player takes up 30 megs of RAM, plus the Finder and a web browser that together take up a minimum of 50MB, on top of Word which takes up a minimum of 25MB with no documents open, I find it surprising that she didn't find things even more sluggish. Yeah, she should have got a RAM upgrade, but maybe OS X and its applications shouldn't be so damned bloated to begin with.

Rower_CPU
Sep 19, 2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
To echo what Hemingray said... I don't understand what the big deal about this article is. She writes from the perspective of an average, non-techie computer user. Once again we see in this thread the sad mentality that Macs are perfect for everybody and are better than PCs in all situations, when that's not true. I give this woman credit for actually keeping an open mind and giving the iMac an honest try - and for writing a fair review.

I'll bet half of you knobheads didn't even read the article.

Alex

If that was truly the case we wouldn't have a problem with the article and we could write it off as yet another uninformed piece of "journalism".

The problem with Kim Komando (I hope to God that's a pseudonym) is that she puports to be anything but an "average, non-techie computer user".

Here's the snippet from the web page about her:
Kim Komando is the host of the nation's largest talk-radio show about computers and the Internet, heard on more than 400 stations in the United States. She writes a weekly column for more than 100 newspapers and a Q&A column for USA Today. She also publishes a free weekly e-mail newsletter.

Someone who hosts a talk-radio show of that magnitude, and writes articles professionally has much more influence over people than the "average, non-techie computer user".

She admits in the introduction to the article that it's a no win situation for her to write it, and that she was in no way influenced by the fact that her article was going up on MSN. Then why the hell did she write it?

Taft
Sep 19, 2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
To echo what Hemingray said... I don't understand what the big deal about this article is. She writes from the perspective of an average, non-techie computer user. Once again we see in this thread the sad mentality that Macs are perfect for everybody and are better than PCs in all situations, when that's not true. I give this woman credit for actually keeping an open mind and giving the iMac an honest try - and for writing a fair review.

I'll bet half of you knobheads didn't even read the article.

Alex

As I stated before, I found her ineptitude surprising considering she is a computer columnist and radio host. Given the fact that she has, by the site's estimation, a VERY large audience, one would hope that she would have more than a cursory knowledge of computers and how they work.

I did read the article. The whole article. And I was surprised at the errors, lack of knowledge and lack of hard facts I saw in the article.

Taft

swahilibill
Sep 19, 2002, 04:43 PM
she has got to be the stupidist bitch I have ever heard of writing an article. She has no idea what she is talking about, floppy, yeah what a flamer. She has no evidence for any of her attacks, you dont want a single button, get a dual, and that has nothing to do with the iMac itself, what a stupid women who thinks she knows something, but she actually does not know ****!

Pepzhez
Sep 19, 2002, 04:47 PM
It seems to me that any Mac is overkill for this woman's needs. What does she claim she needs? MS Word and a floppy (!) drive. But then a 1.5 gHz AMD is overkill for that matter. I have an old 266 mHz Pentium II machine in a closet that will run all of her tasks perfectly fine on Windows 98 - and, yes, it has a floppy drive.

I work at a university in which offices all over campus are littered with aging Pentium I and II's and they are actually adequate for the average user who at most uses MS Word and maybe Powerpoint or Excel, some net browsing and e mail and ... well, that's about it, really.

Keep in mind that the "average" computer user hardly knows what a CD-R is, thinks floppies are the greatest thing ever invented and thinks it's amazing when they discover that they can actually play music CD's through tinny, plastic speakers on their aging machines.

The Mac never was a business computer and never will be. Nor should Apple waste any effort attempting to capture any of that market.

I do have to agree that the woman writing in Salon last month wins the prize for the stupidest article ever; this one is just scatterbrained in the usual, mundane sense.

Taft
Sep 19, 2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

She said she got her iMac in May. Like most non-techies, she probably didn't get a RAM upgrade and left the machine in its default configuration of (I presume) 256MB. In that case, the sluggishness she was experiencing is no surprise at all. When a simple MP3 player takes up 30 megs of RAM, plus the Finder and a web browser that together take up a minimum of 50MB, on top of Word which takes up a minimum of 25MB with no documents open, I find it surprising that she didn't find things even more sluggish. Yeah, she should have got a RAM upgrade, but maybe OS X and its applications shouldn't be so damned bloated to begin with.

I am running a "original" G4 400MHz with 384 MB of RAM all original hardware. I have never experienced second or more lags in switching applications.

Scrolling, resizing windows, opening windows, and minimizing to the dock...yes, I've experienced interface lags in older versions of OS X (and in a few cases with 10.2). But not in switching between apps. The only exceptions to this are very slow or memory hoggish apps. Mozilla, Netscape, and Java-based apps (like Limewire) come to mind, but other apps are generally responsive as those apps crunch away with calculations.

And the author specifically states that she doesn't use iApps and therefore didn't use a 30% RAM-using version of iTunes. And given your estimates, the total RAM consumption of the rest is under 100MB. Giving the OS a lot of room to move without a lot of paging.

But that is beside the point. My point is that I have not experienced the symptoms she describes on an inferior computer. I find multitasking on OS X far superior to under OS 9 and far more clean than under Windows on a superior machine at work (PIII Compaq with 512 RAM).

Is it so hard to believe that a person who gets application's names wrong (Clarisworks!!!!) and dismisses a suite of applications saying, "Aw, they're probably not all that great anyway," might be mistaken about some of the lags that she reports on. This person is supposedly guiding a large amount listeners/readers in the area of technology. I expect more from the people I get my information/opinions from.

Taft

pianojoe
Sep 19, 2002, 04:52 PM
Well, she's just a windows user complaining that the iMac is not enough like windows.

Thank God.

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Taft
I am running a "original" G4 400MHz with 384 MB of RAM all original hardware. I have never experienced second or more lags in switching applications.

Scrolling, resizing windows, opening windows, and minimizing to the dock...yes, I've experienced interface lags in older versions of OS X (and in a few cases with 10.2). But not in switching between apps. The only exceptions to this are very slow or memory hoggish apps. Mozilla, Netscape, and Java-based apps (like Limewire) come to mind, but other apps are generally responsive as those apps crunch away with calculations.
I would attribute her complaints of app-switch lags to either very bloated apps like the ones you mentioned, or to creative license - experiencing lag due to one thing and attributing it to something else for the sake of simplicity and ease of explaining to non-computer-literate people. I think the point remains that with 256MB, you're probably going to experience a fair amount of lag. I know I do.

Alex

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If that was truly the case we wouldn't have a problem with the article and we could write it off as yet another uninformed piece of "journalism".

The problem with Kim Komando (I hope to God that's a pseudonym) is that she puports to be anything but an "average, non-techie computer user".
Where does she purport this?
Someone who hosts a talk-radio show of that magnitude, and writes articles professionally has much more influence over people than the "average, non-techie computer user".
Yes, she does, so what's your point? The funny thing is that if she had written the opposite article - slightly "against" Windows PCs instead of slightly against the Mac - you'd have praise for it coming out your ears.
She admits in the introduction to the article that it's a no win situation for her to write it, and that she was in no way influenced by the fact that her article was going up on MSN. Then why the hell did she write it?
Page views = ad $$.

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Taft
As I stated before, I found her ineptitude surprising considering she is a computer columnist and radio host. Given the fact that she has, by the site's estimation, a VERY large audience, one would hope that she would have more than a cursory knowledge of computers and how they work.
And she presumably does... just not Macs. I can't really hold that against her, seeing as how the Mac does only hold a few percent of the market she is apparently catering to. If I'm Joe Blow, I would probably rather listen to a computer talk show by someone who is kinda like me than by someone who knows and will go to great lengths to explain what a virtual filesystem is (in the comparison between Macintosh HD and My Computer). Yeah, she gets some facts wrong, but they're more or less trivial, and you have to keep in mind that there are strict word count limitations to articles like this. I think she wrote a pretty good article, all things considered.

uhlawboi80
Sep 19, 2002, 05:24 PM
ok, i will have to agree that this woman is a bit touched in the head. but then again, she is a radio talk show host! i get bored and watch this dumb radio talk show woman's tv show. she told a man who was sunk in debt to just cut up his credit cards and pay them off despite them being way over limit, while most financial planners would say, jump ship, over CitiBunk 35-40% (which they would take) and move on...MORAL: talk show hosts have minimal knowledge and are only usefull to the most poorly educated sector on a topic. She knows less about computers than 90% of the people on this forum, so you have to take that into account...just my thought on it. she simply doesnt know, and at least she doesnt trash what she doesnt get

Sun Baked
Sep 19, 2002, 05:34 PM
What else were you expecting?

Especially when you see that is was a blonde that wrote up the computer comparison article.

Rower_CPU
Sep 19, 2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Yes, she does, so what's your point? The funny thing is that if she had written the opposite article - slightly "against" Windows PCs instead of slightly against the Mac - you'd have praise for it coming out your ears.

Actually, the funny thing is that it would have never been published, and if it had, it would have passed under the radar of most mac users.

davidc2182
Sep 19, 2002, 05:42 PM
honestly with some of the things i agree with her, like i think apple should make an ergonomic keyboard, and a 2 button mouse with scroll wheel and a blue LED just little things, I know steve jobs doesn't want us to turn the imac off just put it to sleep, but putting the power button on the butt of the machine is stupid as heck, and yes the imac was slow, but with the Jaguar upgrade its plenty speedy, alas, i got rid of my ibook, i'm saving money up to purchase either an imac, or powermac whichever i may need, at said time, cuz the g3 sucks! anyway the lady didnt totally bash the mac, or winblows but ya know how it is!

rice_web
Sep 19, 2002, 06:49 PM
My favorite comment is when she states that the iMac is price from $800 - $2000. Where can I find an iMac for $800? :)

vniow
Sep 19, 2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by rice_web
My favorite comment is when she states that the iMac is price from $800 - $2000. Where can I find an iMac for $800? :)

I think she was including all iMacs, includung the CRT ones that Apple still sells. :)

mikekerr2002
Sep 19, 2002, 07:02 PM
The unfortunate thing for us mac users is that there's at least some stuff that we can agree with.

I've been a mac user since way back in '84, and the original mac with the os on a floppy you had to load on each time. Now, because of my business I run both platforms. XP is the most maclike windows ever. It's also fast.

I say this a daily user of both platforms. I've been trying to like X as much as I liked 9 since the public beta. Jaguar is there at last. But in my experience as a user, programme for programme speed feels slower under x than XP on machines of similar clock speeds. Web browsing is evidently slower. iCal feels slower than Outlook. And it's not just me that thinks so.

I hope the rumors of an apple web browser are correct. I hope they can nail the problem. But it's wrong to flame somebody because they point out a speed issue which all of us, privately, admit is there.

Gelfin
Sep 19, 2002, 08:45 PM
Well, what did you expect? It's not even an MSN article per se. It's direct from Microsoft bCentral, their business portal. The MS people holding her leash aren't dumb enough to tell her to go out and bash Macs. That would be too obvious. You have to tell her to make it sound like she gave the Mac an honest shot (which, anyone who has actually used a Mac can tell she didn't) and decided her Windows machine was superior.

That "1.533MHz AMD chip" she's referring to can only be the Athlon XP 1800+. AMD has a few marginal speed bump models over this one, but its hardly a bargain basement model performance-wise. I have one at home in my gaming PC and I have yet to ache for an upgrade. Notice also how she downplays the AMD's speed by referring to its clock rate rather than the 1800, a number chosen because its performance is comparable to Intel chips running at 1.8GHz, and she pumps up Intel saying they are "approaching 3 gigahertz," a clever bit of spin doctor handwaving that reveals exactly on which side her bread is buttered.

She then proceeds to claim she found them similar (that is to say, "there's no advantage to using the Mac because they work almost the same") but that the minor differences she found caused her widdle brain to spin. Clever.

"in general, it was just a few seconds slower than my Windows machine. But when you're used to instantaneous response, any lag can be aggravating."

She gets instantaneous response out of her Windows machine? Clearly she has managed to get hold of some magic transdimensional Intel superchip the rest of us don't have access to. And a few seconds? When you're talking about computer responsiveness, you talk in tenths of seconds. If any element of basic responsiveness took a "few seconds" we would have all kicked our Macs to the curb long ago. Even Finder window resizes in OS X 10.0 weren't taking a "few seconds." Yet again, we have a double standard in the exaggeration department with the Mac getting the short end of the stick.

"The iMac came with ClarisWorks, a less capable office package."

Here's a dead giveaway that she didn't use the machine for anywhere near as long as she claims, if at all. It shows she built her article on somebody's misinformed repository of Mac information. As you all know, there hasn't been a "ClarisWorks" (or a "Claris" for that matter) in YEARS. There's nothing on a new iMac called ClarisWorks.

"The most irritating drag came when jumping between Internet Explorer and Word. The iMac would sometimes take a couple seconds to make the switch."

Um, I have both Word and IE open on my slower 667 TiBook right now.
*switch* *switch* *switch*
Um, what in the holy hell is this woman talking about?

"A one-button mouse": Get a Kensington StudioMouse (http://www.kensington.com/html/1216.html). Multiple buttons (supported in OS X), a scrollpad that's FAR superior to any wheel, and it complements all current Macs beautifully.

"The 15-inch monitor": You want a bigger monitor? Fine. Get a dual 867 G4 for $1699 and plug in your existing 21 incher. The G4 is not only comfortably within the iMac price range, it's faster too.

"No floppy drive": I still have a floppy drive on my PC. The eject button is broken. I've used it once, to bootstrap my IDE RAID controller while installing XP, and that floppy is still in the drive. Has been for over a year. If I need to carry data around with me 1.44MB is so not enough, and I can burn a mini-CDR that takes up about the same space, holds immensely more data, and costs me less than a floppy disk. Funny, though, that never comes up. I have this thing called the "Internet," you see...

"You're going to pay hundreds less for a comparable Windows machine."

We all know this depends on what you're willing to call "comparable." Let's look at the offerings from Dell (because you know corporate IT departments aren't cobbling together PCs from cheap off-the-shelf components), shall we? I chose a Dell Optiplex GX50 with a 1.2GHz Celeron in it, the lowest end business machine they make that offers comparable features as options. Configured with their cheapest 15" LCD, a CD-RW, a 40G HD, and a modem, and deleting the floppy drive (all to make it comparable to the entry-level iMac). Bottom line $1736.00. It sure looks attractive when you go to the initial configuration page and see "from $499," though, doesn't it? The entry-level iMac is $1299.00. In other words, the Mac is cheaper even before you casually dismiss the additional software.

Articles like this are aimed at people who manage IT professionals, not at IT professionals themselves. Essentially, when you're reading this article, imagine the effect on Dilbert's boss. That's what they're trying to exploit, and it's frankly disgusting.

I don't throw around terms like "corporate whore" lightly, but there it is, and I think the case to support it is pretty obvious.

vniow
Sep 19, 2002, 08:56 PM
Wow, it takes a good eye to find all the little hidden things in that article.
Thanx for a little clarification.:)

G5orbust
Sep 19, 2002, 09:09 PM
I love how she said that the iMac came w/ clarisworks.... hehe. Claris went south a long time ago and the rights were bought by apple, thus Appleworks was born. Thats what comes with the imac you stupid dumba**. APPLEWORKS!!!!!!!!!! Cant you even read. O wait, you are the same person who cant get mail to work and keeps compairing XP to OSX. OSX blows windowz out of the god damned water. Most PC people would kill to have OSX runing on their x86 rigs because it deos one thing xp cant.... actually run...;) :p :D :cool:

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Gelfin
Well, what did you expect? It's not even an MSN article per se. It's direct from Microsoft bCentral, their business portal. The MS people holding her leash aren't dumb enough to tell her to go out and bash Macs. That would be too obvious. You have to tell her to make it sound like she gave the Mac an honest shot (which, anyone who has actually used a Mac can tell she didn't) and decided her Windows machine was superior.
From the article:
And just to set the record straight, I was not influenced one bit by the fact this column runs on a Microsoft-owned site. In fact, I started my testing months before I began contributing weekly columns to Microsoft bCentral.
I don't really see any reason to not believe her. MSN, for example, has been very pro-Linux and anti-MS in its news reporting. I don't think MS hands down journalistic mandates from on high. Sure it's fun to believe in your elaborate "She's bashing the Mac quietly and succinctly in a grand Microsoft scheme to topple all competition" conspiracy theory, but I can't, in all seriousness, believe that's what's happening.
That "1.533MHz AMD chip" she's referring to can only be the Athlon XP 1800+. AMD has a few marginal speed bump models over this one, but its hardly a bargain basement model performance-wise.
Still cheaper than the 800MHz G4 in the Mac, though.
I have one at home in my gaming PC and I have yet to ache for an upgrade. Notice also how she downplays the AMD's speed by referring to its clock rate rather than the 1800, a number chosen because its performance is comparable to Intel chips running at 1.8GHz, and she pumps up Intel saying they are "approaching 3 gigahertz," a clever bit of spin doctor handwaving that reveals exactly on which side her bread is buttered.
How is that spin? They are approaching 3GHz, aren't they?
She gets instantaneous response out of her Windows machine? Clearly she has managed to get hold of some magic transdimensional Intel superchip the rest of us don't have access to. And a few seconds? When you're talking about computer responsiveness, you talk in tenths of seconds. If any element of basic responsiveness took a "few seconds" we would have all kicked our Macs to the curb long ago. Even Finder window resizes in OS X 10.0 weren't taking a "few seconds." Yet again, we have a double standard in the exaggeration department with the Mac getting the short end of the stick.
And definitely plenty of counter-exaggeration on your part to go up against that. :rolleyes:
"The iMac came with ClarisWorks, a less capable office package."

Here's a dead giveaway that she didn't use the machine for anywhere near as long as she claims, if at all.
Or else it's a dead giveaway that she used Office.X instead, like she said in the article.
It shows she built her article on somebody's misinformed repository of Mac information. As you all know, there hasn't been a "ClarisWorks" (or a "Claris" for that matter) in YEARS. There's nothing on a new iMac called ClarisWorks.
Yes, she screwed up here, no doubt about it. Maybe she meant to imply that AppleWorks is based off of ClarisWorks or something, and the editor screwed up. But yes.
"The most irritating drag came when jumping between Internet Explorer and Word. The iMac would sometimes take a couple seconds to make the switch."

Um, I have both Word and IE open on my slower 667 TiBook right now.
*switch* *switch* *switch*
Um, what in the holy hell is this woman talking about?
I think her iMac probably doesn't have a lot of RAM. And by that, I mean it probably does have a lot of RAM, but OS X uses so damned much RAM that when you run it, a lot becomes a little, and Apple ships all its low-end machines by default with a suboptimal amount of RAM.
"The 15-inch monitor": You want a bigger monitor? Fine. Get a dual 867 G4 for $1699 and plug in your existing 21 incher. The G4 is not only comfortably within the iMac price range, it's faster too.
As she says, she reviewed the iMac because that's what Apple gave her. $1699 is pretty pricey for a computer as slow as the dual 867 Power Mac.
"No floppy drive": I still have a floppy drive on my PC. The eject button is broken. I've used it once, to bootstrap my IDE RAID controller while installing XP, and that floppy is still in the drive. Has been for over a year. If I need to carry data around with me 1.44MB is so not enough, and I can burn a mini-CDR that takes up about the same space, holds immensely more data, and costs me less than a floppy disk. Funny, though, that never comes up. I have this thing called the "Internet," you see...
I agree with this. Floppies can be useful in some situations where two computers aren't connected to the same LAN or have slow connections to the internet and don't have CD rewriters, but that's about it. And there are always cheapo USB floppy drives. Then again, it's not like she condemned the Mac for this. She barely even mentioned it.
"You're going to pay hundreds less for a comparable Windows machine."

We all know this depends on what you're willing to call "comparable." Let's look at the offerings from Dell (because you know corporate IT departments aren't cobbling together PCs from cheap off-the-shelf components), shall we? I chose a Dell Optiplex GX50 with a 1.2GHz Celeron in it, the lowest end business machine they make that offers comparable features as options. Configured with their cheapest 15" LCD, a CD-RW, a 40G HD, and a modem, and deleting the floppy drive (all to make it comparable to the entry-level iMac). Bottom line $1736.00. It sure looks attractive when you go to the initial configuration page and see "from $499," though, doesn't it? The entry-level iMac is $1299.00. In other words, the Mac is cheaper even before you casually dismiss the additional software.
That's weird, I got more like $1400, even with the Optiplex. Funny how you picked the most expensive business desktop Dell makes, and then compared it to a home computer, but whatever.

Alex

Gelfin
Sep 19, 2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
don't really see any reason to not believe her. MSN, for example, has been very pro-Linux and anti-MS in its news reporting. I don't think MS hands down journalistic mandates from on high. Sure it's fun to believe in your elaborate "She's bashing the Mac quietly and succinctly in a grand Microsoft scheme to topple all competition" conspiracy theory, but I can't, in all seriousness, believe that's what's happening.

As I said, that article was linked from bCentral, which is NOT a journalistic source, but Microsoft's business services arm.

Still cheaper than the 800MHz G4 in the Mac, though.

Not what I was saying, though, was it? She's playing down the speed of the Athlon because it's convenient to her argument.

How is that spin? They are approaching 3GHz, aren't they?

See the above response. This time she's playing up the speed of Pentium 4 chips, again because it's convenient to her argument. Spin is about word choice and implication more than whether what you say is true or false. A spin doctor is someone who can take a single, dry fact and make it sound like a positive or a negative without technically abusing the facts.

And definitely plenty of counter-exaggeration on your part to go up against that. :rolleyes:

Exactly, by way of highlighting the implications of what she's saying and the rhetorical tactics she's using in her argument. You fail to address the thrust of the comment, though, that she consistently exaggerates things on the Wintel side in the positive direction, and things on the Mac side in the negative direction. If you're saying she's not doing that, then please support that point directly.

Or else it's a dead giveaway that she used Office.X instead, like she said in the article.

In order to write about it, at some point she had to make the determination that a lightweight productivity suite was delivered with the machine. There is no way that she could have done so without seeing that AppleWorks was the suite she got. Sure she might have just leapt right into Office.X and ignored the existence of AppleWorks altogether, but then she wouldn't have mentioned it in the article.

Yes, she screwed up here, no doubt about it. Maybe she meant to imply that AppleWorks is based off of ClarisWorks or something, and the editor screwed up. But yes.

Sure, I'll meet you on this one. It's possible that it was a less egregious example of sloppy journalism than it appears on the surface.

I think her iMac probably doesn't have a lot of RAM. And by that, I mean it probably does have a lot of RAM, but OS X uses so damned much RAM that when you run it, a lot becomes a little, and Apple ships all its low-end machines by default with a suboptimal amount of RAM.

I'll agree, and admittedly I hadn't thought of that. If she got a model with 128MB RAM, it might have been swapping some. Honestly, though, I'm surprised if she got a model with 128MB. Standard policy for ANY company sending out a sample to a reviewer is not to skimp on optimizations.

As she says, she reviewed the iMac because that's what Apple gave her. $1699 is pretty pricey for a computer as slow as the dual 867 Power Mac.

Well, it's not THAT slow to start with, but that's not the point. The point is that she does have options that will address her concern, that fit into the same price range as the iMac.

(Ignoring the floppy thing, since we pretty much agree)

That's weird, I got more like $1400, even with the Optiplex. Funny how you picked the most expensive business desktop Dell makes, and then compared it to a home computer, but whatever.

Well, her policy in that article was to evaluate the iMac as a business computer, wasn't it? The Optiplex, however, is NOT the most expensive business desktop Dell makes. The GX50 is a small Celeron-based unit, the kind of thing you'd have on your office admin's desk. Their most expensive business desktop would run her about three grand without adding any more bells and whistles than what comes with an iMac. Granted that machine will have a 1.8GHz P4 Xeon in it, but that's why I didn't pick that machine for comparison. As for your $1400, the easiest explanation I can think of is that you picked the 15" CRT instead of a 15" LCD. That makes the price around $1400.

Farside161
Sep 19, 2002, 10:20 PM
i don't think she understands what she was doing on her mac word has always had proformance problems and NETSCAPE who even uses that any more IE is so much faster (even though I think that apple should come out with a browser). and saying that 800 MHZ is not fast enough and saying that intel had chips that are close to 3 GHZ does she know where intel gets its speed, from over extending the chips pipeline (intel calls in "hyper pipeline teachnolgy"), the G4 altivec wich speeds it up a lot.

Jimong5
Sep 19, 2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
[As she says, she reviewed the iMac because that's what Apple gave her. $1699 is pretty pricey for a computer as slow as the dual 867 Power Mac.[/B]
Excuse me? as slow as the dual 867? have you owned/used one of these puppies? I didn't realize I needed more than 17x CD ripping on iTunes... or over 80 frames in UT, or run VPC faster (its nearly lag free now)

alex_ant
Sep 19, 2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Gelfin
As I said, that article was linked from bCentral, which is NOT a journalistic source, but Microsoft's business services arm.
Yes... but as she said, she had her Mac experience before she even had anything to do with MS.

Besides, It is not in MS's best interest to bash the Mac, even lightly. They never do it. It would be hypocritical and counterproductive to bash a platform they're actively developing for.
Not what I was saying, though, was it? She's playing down the speed of the Athlon because it's convenient to her argument.
That's true, but I don't see how it's is very important. X86 CPUs are so inexpensive, and there are so many different speed grades, the the difference between her AMD chip and a substantially slower one is probably, what, $40? Give or take.
See the above response. This time she's playing up the speed of Pentium 4 chips, again because it's convenient to her argument. Spin is about word choice and implication more than whether what you say is true or false. A spin doctor is someone who can take a single, dry fact and make it sound like a positive or a negative without technically abusing the facts.
I think you're taking what she said out of context. Read these paragraphs carefully:
My Windows machine is not the latest and greatest. This particular machine has a 1.533-gigahertz chip from Advanced Micro Devices. With Intel chips approaching 3 gigahertz, my AMD machine is at the bottom of the Windows heap. Nonetheless, it is nearly twice as fast as the iMac's 800-megahertz Motorola chip.

Apple buffs argue that chip speed is a misleading measure. AMD, which trails Intel in chip speed, makes the same argument. I agree, up to a point.

The quality of the hard drive, memory, bus, video card, etc., also affects a computer's speed. But, golly, 800 MHz just isn't very fast today. Given the difference in chip speeds, though, the iMac did pretty well. My hat's off to Apple's engineers.

There is no pro-Intel spin here. She even compliments Apple at the end of her processor speed tangent.
Exactly, by way of highlighting the implications of what she's saying and the rhetorical tactics she's using in her argument. You fail to address the thrust of the comment, though, that she consistently exaggerates things on the Wintel side in the positive direction, and things on the Mac side in the negative direction. If you're saying she's not doing that, then please support that point directly.
I find quite a bit on the positive side in her Mac comments. The way it's written makes it look as if she is making special effort to be fair.
The iMac is very, very stylish. Surrounded by Windows machines in my offices, it looked like a debutante at a frumps' convention.
...
The first test was getting the iMac on the network. That was a piece of cake. Just a few entries were needed in System Preferences.
...
Apple has a native e-mail application, but I couldn't get it to work. That was no big deal, really.
...
I have had some experience with Macs, but it had been a while. So I had to learn the iMac, which was running the OS X operating system. My productivity immediately plunged. The iMac will do most of what Windows does, but it often does things differently. The Help system was somewhat sketchy, similar to Windows.
Here she says her productivity plunged, but she said nothing about the Mac doing things in an inferior manner - she only said that the Mac "does things differently," which is not a negative comment. She even evens it out further by making a jab at Windows' help system.
...
Swapping the Mac files with my staff on Windows machines was no problem.
...
The only disappointing aspect of the iMac was its lack of speed. Don't get me wrong: It wasn't that it was particularly slow in general, it was just a few seconds slower than my Windows machine.
...
Moving between folders or opening the New Message window seemed sooo slow. However, that may have been a Netscape problem.
...
OS X crashed just once during the test.
...
As I packed the iMac back into its box, I felt a pang of regret. I had grown fond of the little guy.
In fact, there is much more pro-Apple sentiment in this article than pro-MS or pro-PC sentiment. The only thing not pro-Apple about this article is its conclusion and a few small and tactful nitpicks, like what she thought of the mouse and and the small display. The problem is that Mac loyalists are so intolerant of dissenting viewpoints that they make up their minds before they even read the article - everything they don't agree with stands out in their mind and everything they do agree with must be some sort of ploy or subversion tactic.
In order to write about it, at some point she had to make the determination that a lightweight productivity suite was delivered with the machine. There is no way that she could have done so without seeing that AppleWorks was the suite she got. Sure she might have just leapt right into Office.X and ignored the existence of AppleWorks altogether, but then she wouldn't have mentioned it in the article.
I think she must have been thinking of ClarisWorks and slipped up. She probably meant to say "formerly ClarisWorks" or something. There's no denying she screwed up here, although I don't see why it's such a monumentally huge mistake she ought to be crucified for. It really makes little difference.
Well, it's not THAT slow to start with, but that's not the point. The point is that she does have options that will address her concern, that fit into the same price range as the iMac.
This could be true - and with that said, she should have made mention of the Power Mac in the beginning of the article.
Well, her policy in that article was to evaluate the iMac as a business computer, wasn't it? The Optiplex, however, is NOT the most expensive business desktop Dell makes. The GX50 is a small Celeron-based unit, the kind of thing you'd have on your office admin's desk. Their most expensive business desktop would run her about three grand without adding any more bells and whistles than what comes with an iMac. Granted that machine will have a 1.8GHz P4 Xeon in it, but that's why I didn't pick that machine for comparison. As for your $1400, the easiest explanation I can think of is that you picked the 15" CRT instead of a 15" LCD. That makes the price around $1400.
Nope... $1457, 256MB, CDRW, 15" TFT, 40GB, etc. And I'm sure that price could come down with a little shopping around. I do admit my gross unfamiliarity with Dell's product lineup, though.

Alex

Taft
Sep 20, 2002, 01:29 AM
Alex_ant...

I can't understand your blind defense of this woman's article. You sit here and blast us "Mac-heads" of blindly following Apple, then turn around and blindly defend this article.

This woman made mistakes in her article. She exagerrated her bad experiences with the Mac and looked through rose colored glasses at her Wintel past. While the article was in no way "Mac bashing," it was inaccurate and misleading in a few areas.

You defend her by saying that the average person would rather listen to another average person's advice about computers?? This does not sound like good advice to me. Would I ask another average person adive about investing or which car is best or safest?? Heck no. I go to a source that is informed whose opinion I respect. I cannot say that this woman represents any of these things.

The article contains glaring editorial oversights, half-truths, a lack of facts and worthless comparisons (business computer to a consumer Mac with very little in the way of specs). The ONLY thing this article would be good for is an account of this woman's personal experience, which is what the article sets out to deliver.

But the question I pose to you is this: what worth is an article such as this when it presents no hard facts, contains obvious exaggerations, useless and misleading comparisons and displays obvious bias? This article isn't bad so much because the woman is inept (though from this I don't believe her to be capable of delivering sound computer advice), but more because it contains no fair and useful information. It is at best useless and at worst will give people an inaccurate impression of Macs (according to all but you, that is).

And try not to drag us into a pricing debate here. When was the last time you priced a business PC. Last I checked Dell wasn't giving away their pro line of PCs.

Taft

backspinner
Sep 20, 2002, 03:51 AM
In fact, there is much more pro-Apple sentiment in this article than pro-MS or pro-PC sentiment. The only thing not pro-Apple about this article is its conclusion and a few small and tactful nitpicks, like what she thought of the mouse and and the small display.

Well said and in my opinion, true. Skip the conclusion and it is a positive comparision for a business point of view. With errors, that is indeed obvious.

Do I use floppies in my business? Yes, occasionaly I get technical stuf on them but most of the time these are Windows targeted things like drivers :-) so that explains why she thinks she needs it...

e-coli
Sep 20, 2002, 08:54 AM
She didn't say anything that wasn't true. For a first time Mac user, the review was honest. Windows people just do things different and expect different things.

I will whole-heartedly agree with her, though. The iMac is dreadfully, dreadfully slow in comparison to what's available in the marketplace. (100MHz BUS and PC100 RAM just kills it). But we all know, to, that the G4 is way behind. We've discussed that over and over and probably don't need to go there again.

She was also running OS X 10.1.X. It, too, was extremely slow in comparison to Windows.

And a one-button mouse is just rediculous to windows users. It is to me, too (considering Apple goes to great lengths to include contextual menus and I have to ctrl + click).

alex_ant
Sep 20, 2002, 09:51 AM
I wonder, am I reading a different article than everybody else is?
Originally posted by Taft
I can't understand your blind defense of this woman's article. You sit here and blast us "Mac-heads" of blindly following Apple, then turn around and blindly defend this article.
Except I haven't blindly read it. I read it several times over quite thoroughly. It is not an anti-Apple article, period. Yes, it gets a few small facts wrong. If you'll pay attention to the author's wording, it is immediately obvious that she is taking great pains to be as fair as possible. She's walking on a minefield and she knows it, which is why all her comparisons are clarified and she goes out of her way to compliment and give the benefit of the doubt to the iMac even when she comes to the conclusion that she prefers PCs for what she uses them for.
This woman made mistakes in her article. She exagerrated her bad experiences with the Mac
No, she didn't. Read the article.
and looked through rose colored glasses at her Wintel past.
Firstly, you're exaggerating, and secondly, Wintel is what she ended up preferring, so of course she speaks more highly of it. I personally can't fault her for that. And if you had actually read the article closely, you would have seen that she gives many more compliments to the iMac than her old PC.
While the article was in no way "Mac bashing," it was inaccurate and misleading in a few areas.
All articles are misleading to some degree. The ClarisWorks thing was really stupid, I agree, but I don't feel that any of the inaccuracies change the overall sentiment or validity of the article when all is said and done.
You defend her by saying that the average person would rather listen to another average person's advice about computers?? This does not sound like good advice to me. Would I ask another average person adive about investing or which car is best or safest?? Heck no. I go to a source that is informed whose opinion I respect. I cannot say that this woman represents any of these things.
What I meant when I said that was that nobody wants to hear things in geek-speak. Of course they want the person they're hearing to be knowledgeable, but they also want him/her to be plain-speaking. Sometimes, technical details get lost in the translation from geek-speak to plain-speak. Her factual errors are small and don't make much difference in the end.
The article contains glaring editorial oversights, half-truths, a lack of facts and worthless comparisons (business computer to a consumer Mac with very little in the way of specs). The ONLY thing this article would be good for is an account of this woman's personal experience, which is what the article sets out to deliver.
And does deliver, does it not?
But the question I pose to you is this: what worth is an article such as this when it presents no hard facts, contains obvious exaggerations, useless and misleading comparisons and displays obvious bias? This article isn't bad so much because the woman is inept (though from this I don't believe her to be capable of delivering sound computer advice), but more because it contains no fair and useful information. It is at best useless and at worst will give people an inaccurate impression of Macs (according to all but you, that is).
Of course it's inaccurate. It's not a 500 page technical manual. You have to be inaccurate if all you've got is three pages and are planning on going into intricate detail on the differences between Macs and PCs. There are few exaggerations present in the article, and those that do exist are trivial. Is it biased? I don't think so. I don't sense any hostility toward the Mac in her tone; whenever she points out a perceived drawback of the Mac, she makes certain to pad it with another redeeming quality. As far as Mac-PC comparisons go, I'd say this is one of the fairer ones. I'd expect nothing more from someone who's only been using their Mac for a few months, and only has this amount of space in which to share their experiences.

Alex

Gelfin
Sep 20, 2002, 01:13 PM
Wow, alex, you must be an advertiser's dream. I thought every American who grew up since the advent of television had an intuitive understanding of marketing doublespeak. Since you seem not to, allow me to clarify for you. The overt text is less important than the subtext, and the impression it leaves in the mind of the reader.

You may have, at some point, gotten one of the stupid joke emails which claims to translate "meeting-speak" into plain english. The important one in this context, which is amusing but actually very accurate, is that when someone says, "I don't disagree, but..." what they really mean is "I disagree." This minor bit of doublespeak is often used primarily to soften a confrontation, but also to lure your opponent in with the pretext of agreement.

That's exactly what's going on in this entire article, and most people seem to see that even if they haven't put words to the intuition. The article is certainly not pro-Mac. Ms. Komando is saying, "I really like the Mac, but..." in the same way you'd say of a human being you're criticizing, "I really like Fred, but..." One thing you can be sure of is that whatever follows is not going to be complimentary of Fred, and the speaker may very well not like Fred at all. He leads in with that qualification just to avoid starting a brawl by saying, "that Fred, he's a wanker."

In the article, you're reading these qualifications as if they're the bottom line.

I'm going to draw some parallels here which, disclaimer in advance, are not intended to express actual opinions, but let me know how you feel about them. Imagine a prospective employer were contacting a past employer of yours as a reference:

"But, golly, 80 IQ just isn't very smart today. Given the difference in brain power, though, alex_ant did pretty well. My hat's off to his instructors."

"alex_ant has networking skills, but he couldn't get my router configured. That was no big deal, really."

"The only disappointing aspect of alex_ant was his lack of brains. Don't get me wrong: It wasn't that he was particularly dumb in general, he was just a little slower than my other employees."

"As I signed alex_ant's termination papers, I felt a pang of regret. I had grown fond of the little guy. But, frankly, I'm more impressed with the performance of my other employees."

Would you feel you had been complimented? Would you call this a pro-alex_ant description? Would you expect to be hired based on such sentiments?

uhlawboi80
Sep 20, 2002, 02:14 PM
thank god someone else who has some unerstanding of marketing chimed in! She didnt bash the mac, just like movie makers dont make you hate the villain too much if later they want you to sympathize with him. If you are harsh flat out people just take everything you say in relation to that. she doesnt like the apple for not to great reasons, mainly, its (DUH) differnt. She doesnt come out and attack the iMac she had but she throws enough little jabs in there to make it obvious shes a windows user who didnt care much to give the iMac a fair shake

Taft
Sep 20, 2002, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

No, she didn't. Read the article.
....
Firstly, you're exaggerating, and secondly, Wintel is what she ended up preferring, so of course she speaks more highly of it. I personally can't fault her for that. And if you had actually read the article closely, you would have seen that she gives many more compliments to the iMac than her old PC.


You are using a quite liberal definition of the word compliment. Given her wording in most of the "compliments", which I read quite thoroughly thanks to your quotations and added inflections, I took many of them as carefully subversive and biting towards the Mac.


Apple buffs argue that chip speed is a misleading measure. AMD, which trails Intel in chip speed, makes the same argument. I agree, up to a point.

The quality of the hard drive, memory, bus, video card, etc., also affects a computer's speed. But, golly, 800 MHz just isn't very fast today. Given the difference in chip speeds, though, the iMac did pretty well. My hat's off to Apple's engineers.


Here is a perfect example of ineptitude on her part. She agrees with the megahertz myth, up to a point. OK, fair enough. But her second paragraph quite clearly displays her ignorance on the subject. She says that other things in the computer influence speed too, but golly, 800 MHz sure is slow.

What is the MHz myth??? It is certainly not that other components can make up for a processor with a slow clock speed. It is rather that a clock speed is not an accurate indicator of a processor's performance, not the computer's performance as a whole.

When I said exaggerrated, I was referring to her statements about lag times. Lag times which have not been experienced by any other people here. Lag times tht could suggest, lets say, her hard disk had spun down and had to start spinning again before doing work. A symptom which is present on ANY computer with power conservation of any kind.

My point is that her statements are certainly worth close scrutiny when she apparently lacks any real understanding of general computing and, if she has any, uses none of her deduction skills in an attempt to explain or accurately compare the apparent speed differences.

Misconceptions by a person in the media who doesn't have a full understanding of the issues at hand can breed misconceptions in her audience as a whole. This is not a positive thing for the Mac platform. It deserves scrutiny and opposing voices.

Taft

alex_ant
Sep 20, 2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Gelfin
The overt text is less important than the subtext, and the impression it leaves in the mind of the reader.

You may have, at some point, gotten one of the stupid joke emails which claims to translate "meeting-speak" into plain english. The important one in this context, which is amusing but actually very accurate, is that when someone says, "I don't disagree, but..." what they really mean is "I disagree." This minor bit of doublespeak is often used primarily to soften a confrontation, but also to lure your opponent in with the pretext of agreement.
What opponent? It's an article about a woman's experiences with a Mac, coming from a PC background. Who or what is her opponent? Might it not be possible that she actually does like her iMac, as she conveys throughout the article, but likes her PC a little bit more, both of which notions are clearly expressed in her conclusion? This would be by far the simpler explanation, and the simpler explanation is usually the right one.
That's exactly what's going on in this entire article, and most people seem to see that even if they haven't put words to the intuition. The article is certainly not pro-Mac. Ms. Komando is saying, "I really like the Mac, but..." in the same way you'd say of a human being you're criticizing, "I really like Fred, but..." One thing you can be sure of is that whatever follows is not going to be complimentary of Fred, and the speaker may very well not like Fred at all. He leads in with that qualification just to avoid starting a brawl by saying, "that Fred, he's a wanker."
Yes. Now, here's the deal: She says the iMac's screen is too small, and she complains that it doesn't have a floppy drive, and she complains that it's just a little less snappy than her PC. How do you expect her to express this? She did it as tactfully as possible, and you still complain that she's launching a cunning subtextual attack. For her, it's a no-win situation. If she expresses her feelings overtly, you'll complain that she's biased and unfair and so on. If she expresses her feelings subtextually, you'll complain in the way you're doing now. What do you want her to do? Say the opposite of what she wants to say? Speak in code? I'm sorry, but if she thinks the iMac could be faster, then she thinks the iMac could be faster, and she is neither being unfair nor un-journalistic by expressing the shortfalls that she perceives.

She is being un-journalistic by getting a few of her facts wrong. That I agree with, although again, I think the net effect of her screw-ups in this department is minimal.
In the article, you're reading these qualifications as if they're the bottom line.

I'm going to draw some parallels here which, disclaimer in advance, are not intended to express actual opinions, but let me know how you feel about them. Imagine a prospective employer were contacting a past employer of yours as a reference:

"But, golly, 80 IQ just isn't very smart today. Given the difference in brain power, though, alex_ant did pretty well. My hat's off to his instructors."

"alex_ant has networking skills, but he couldn't get my router configured. That was no big deal, really."

"The only disappointing aspect of alex_ant was his lack of brains. Don't get me wrong: It wasn't that he was particularly dumb in general, he was just a little slower than my other employees."

"As I signed alex_ant's termination papers, I felt a pang of regret. I had grown fond of the little guy. But, frankly, I'm more impressed with the performance of my other employees."

Would you feel you had been complimented? Would you call this a pro-alex_ant description? Would you expect to be hired based on such sentiments?
Nobody is hiring anybody. This is an article about a woman with a PC background trying out the Mac. And it's an important distinction: I would not expect to be hired based on such sentiments, nor would I feel very good about them. However, I would much rather have those statements said about me than mercilessly scathing personal attacks.

More accurately, you could have phrased it like this: Imagine I'm a drug-abusing hippie who smells like arse and steals from the petty cash drawer (in other words, I'm the iMac), and you, a prospective employer, are calling a past employer of mine for information about me. Do you want to know what I'm really like as an employee, or do you want to hear only positive, sugar-coated observations?

Alex

Jimong5
Sep 20, 2002, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

More accurately, you could have phrased it like this: Imagine I'm a drug-abusing hippie who smells like arse and steals from the petty cash drawer (in other words, I'm the iMac), and you, a prospective employer, are calling a past employer of mine for information about me. Do you want to know what I'm really like as an employee, or do you want to hear only positive, sugar-coated observations?

Alex [/B]

exactly. The iMac IS a druggie Hippie. but if your looking for a diligent, hard worker, his name is Mr. Powermac. I own one of these, so don't give me any BS on how it isn't fast enough to be useful. the only times it isn't is crunching, and offices don't crunch very often.

alex_ant
Sep 20, 2002, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Here is a perfect example of ineptitude on her part. She agrees with the megahertz myth, up to a point. OK, fair enough. But her second paragraph quite clearly displays her ignorance on the subject. She says that other things in the computer influence speed too, but golly, 800 MHz sure is slow.

What is the MHz myth??? It is certainly not that other components can make up for a processor with a slow clock speed. It is rather that a clock speed is not an accurate indicator of a processor's performance, not the computer's performance as a whole.
Yup, another screw-up. You're right, she does appear to be ignorant in this area. It doesn't really have an effect on the gist of the article, though. That's not an excuse, just an observation.
When I said exaggerrated, I was referring to her statements about lag times. Lag times which have not been experienced by any other people here.

Lag times tht could suggest, lets say, her hard disk had spun down and had to start spinning again before doing work. A symptom which is present on ANY computer with power conservation of any kind.

I would disagree that they've not been experienced by anyone else here, but I think that testing for such lag times is highly unscientific and dependent upon individual machine configuration, and thus will usually be exaggerated by the anti-Mac people and minimized or ignored by the pro-Mac. I would consider myself reasonably neutral, and I can understand how she would be experiencing these lag times if she doesn't have a lot of RAM, which is likely. She should have said how much RAM she had, though - if she had 256MB, that probably explains it, and if she had 128MB, then that definitely explains it.
My point is that her statements are certainly worth close scrutiny when she apparently lacks any real understanding of general computing and, if she has any, uses none of her deduction skills in an attempt to explain or accurately compare the apparent speed differences.
You're right. My only explanation is that she's trying to aim her article to the crowd who doesn't know what a hard disk or RAM is (which is a lot of people), and doesn't want to confuse them or talk above them.
Misconceptions by a person in the media who doesn't have a full understanding of the issues at hand can breed misconceptions in her audience as a whole. This is not a positive thing for the Mac platform. It deserves scrutiny and opposing voices.
This goes both ways. There are inaccuracies in both pro-PC and pro-Mac articles. Nobody here seems to complain when MacWorld or whatever other pro-Mac publication screws up (like what's-his-name did a while back when he compared an iMac or whatever it was to an obsolete Vaio). Which doesn't nullify or disqualify this author's errors, but again, I think the ultimate effect of her errors is minimal.

Alex

alex_ant
Sep 20, 2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Jimong5
exactly. The iMac IS a druggie Hippie. but if your looking for a diligent, hard worker, his name is Mr. Powermac. I own one of these, so don't give me any BS on how it isn't fast enough to be useful. the only times it isn't is crunching, and offices don't crunch very often.
I didn't say it wasn't fast enough to be useful. I said it was slow for the price.

Jimong5
Sep 20, 2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I didn't say it wasn't fast enough to be useful. I said it was slow for the price.

and I also Implied that it was. Besides, I noticed that perhaps experimenter Bias may be afoot. I was once a blind Windows Zealot. I looked at a G3 PowerMac a few years back. I was drawn, intrigued. But alas, I in my blindness shrugged it off as "just a Mac". I FORCED MYSELF AWAY. I think this "Test" is much like my early Mac brush, If the tester doesn't want to see the benefits, they won't. It only works if they have an open mind.

Gelfin
Sep 20, 2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

What opponent? It's an article about a woman's experiences with a Mac, coming from a PC background. Who or what is her opponent? Might it not be possible that she actually does like her iMac, as she conveys throughout the article, but likes her PC a little bit more, both of which notions are clearly expressed in her conclusion? This would be by far the simpler explanation, and the simpler explanation is usually the right one.

She is attempting to persuade her audience to a particular point of view (namely, "no you should not switch to an iMac"). Her opponent is anyone with whom the "switch" ads might have struck a chord, anyone who might be at risk of jumping ship to the Mac platform. Her job, whether the opinion is truly her own or that of her employers, is to sway the audience to her point of view.

Your appeal to Ockham's Razor in this case is not appropriate, and you seem to have only a partial understanding of the principle. It is not merely the simplest explanation which tends to be correct, but the simplest explanation which fits the facts in evidence. What I've been doing this whole time is presenting evidence, taken directly from the text, to support my reading of it.

Yes. Now, here's the deal: She says the iMac's screen is too small, and she complains that it doesn't have a floppy drive, and she complains that it's just a little less snappy than her PC. How do you expect her to express this? She did it as tactfully as possible, and you still complain that she's launching a cunning subtextual attack. For her, it's a no-win situation. If she expresses her feelings overtly, you'll complain that she's biased and unfair and so on.

If she had presented a good case for her viewpoint, I would not consider her biased and unfair. If she expressed a negative opinion overtly, I would disagree, but I would have more respect for her.

She is being un-journalistic by getting a few of her facts wrong. That I agree with, although again, I think the net effect of her screw-ups in this department is minimal.

Correcting factual errors is a minimum requirement in professional journalism.

Nobody is hiring anybody. This is an article about a woman with a PC background trying out the Mac. And it's an important distinction: I would not expect to be hired based on such sentiments, nor would I feel very good about them. However, I would much rather have those statements said about me than mercilessly scathing personal attacks.

Um, no, nobody is hiring anybody, but people are making choices about which computer to buy next, and they are soliciting opinions to help them make those choices. This article provides such an opinion. See, it's an analogy.

But you agree they are not complimentary statements, right? I mean, they are just adaptations of the same statements you cited when you claimed that the article was more pro-Mac than anti-Mac, and yet, by analogy, you wouldn't expect anyone to choose an iMac based on those statements. Despite the honey glazing, those are not complimentary statements. This is not a complimentary article. Q.E.D.

More accurately, you could have phrased it like this: Imagine I'm a drug-abusing hippie who smells like arse and steals from the petty cash drawer (in other words, I'm the iMac), and you, a prospective employer, are calling a past employer of mine for information about me. Do you want to know what I'm really like as an employee, or do you want to hear only positive, sugar-coated observations?

That's actually not accurate at all. In fact, it's quite a deviation, but if that's what you believe the iMac is equivalent to, then it explains a lot about your position here.

Suppose, though, that you were that sort of employee. Armed with such strong evidence that you could not be trusted with the job, of course you would expect the damning facts to be stated directly. That's kind of the point. If he's dancing around the issue, making veiled jabs of the sort I posted above, then one might well be suspicious not only of the accuracy of the implications, but also of the ex-boss' motives in trying to imply a state of affairs more negative than what he's willing to overtly commit to.

jelloshotsrule
Sep 20, 2002, 10:33 PM
gonna have to agree with alex here....

my parents own a 700 imac. i've used it plenty. it is a bit sluggish. and i think she might have hit on the reason, though in reference to something else... she mentioned that it might have been the software at some point when talking about sluggish netscape... that might be the problem with ie and word too... then again, maybe not. could've been a lack of ram, or... could've been a bit slow computer....

don't get me wrong. it's not SLOW. but this WAS 10.1.x. and i find it hard to believe that no one remembers hearing some sluggishness concerns during 10.1.x... i certainly do. heck, my brother still bitches about it.

her discussion of ms office was bad.... cause well, it's flawed. and yet, she seems to say that she bets everything else would work as well as word did... sure, most things are fine. and office for the mac might well be best (never really use it on pc)... but there are still alignment issues and whatnot.... so it's not perfect.

she did a pretty bad job talking about that mhz myth... in that she seemed to flip flop a bit...

yes, her article might keep people from exploring the mac for themselves, and yes, that's not good for apple... but that said, i don't think that her comments were terrible, or that unfair. they were the types of things MOST pc users would say. "it's so different." and "it's only 800 mhz"....

her worst comments were about the iapps though... glazing over them as though they're worthless... but alas, she didn't need em and doesn't use em. she still shouldn't have claimed they were bad/not all that great though. without trying.

floppy drive. no reason not to get a mac.

speed. is a reason not to get a mac. but not really for consumers.

price.. yeah. my girlfriend's mom got a new p4 around january for about 1k, with monitor.... i couldn't sell her on the imac mainly caues of the price and "it's different, i don't want to get used to something new". the fact is, the people who know least about computers are most afraid to switch, though it would benefit them greatly (as most/all of us would agree.)

the woman DOES claim to be a computer guru (i've actually heard her show)... and clearly she's not as computer savvy as she seems... but i don't think it's "the worst article ever".

the salon one seemed a lot worse
i digress

alex_ant
Sep 20, 2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Gelfin
She is attempting to persuade her audience to a particular point of view (namely, "no you should not switch to an iMac"). Her opponent is anyone with whom the "switch" ads might have struck a chord, anyone who might be at risk of jumping ship to the Mac platform. Her job, whether the opinion is truly her own or that of her employers, is to sway the audience to her point of view.
Well, Microsoft bCentral isn't the BBC, is it? This article is clearly an opinion piece, yet you are judging it on other terms. As far as opinion articles go, this one is quite fair.
Your appeal to Ockham's Razor in this case is not appropriate, and you seem to have only a partial understanding of the principle.
At least I can spell it properly. :rolleyes:
It is not merely the simplest explanation which tends to be correct, but the simplest explanation which fits the facts in evidence. What I've been doing this whole time is presenting evidence, taken directly from the text, to support my reading of it.
As am I. And we continue to maintain different opinions about the overall message of the article. This thread is already long enough; I'm not sure continuing to blather on about it as we are will get us anywhere.
If she had presented a good case for her viewpoint, I would not consider her biased and unfair. If she expressed a negative opinion overtly, I would disagree, but I would have more respect for her.
I doubt you would, but I'll take your word for it.
Correcting factual errors is a minimum requirement in professional journalism.
It's a good thing she's a radio talk show host and not a journalist then, although I agree, the factual errors are really sloppy and hurt the article substantially.
Um, no, nobody is hiring anybody, but people are making choices about which computer to buy next, and they are soliciting opinions to help them make those choices. This article provides such an opinion. See, it's an analogy.

But you agree they are not complimentary statements, right? I mean, they are just adaptations of the same statements you cited when you claimed that the article was more pro-Mac than anti-Mac, and yet, by analogy, you wouldn't expect anyone to choose an iMac based on those statements. Despite the honey glazing, those are not complimentary statements. This is not a complimentary article. Q.E.D.
Some of the statements she makes are not particularly complimentary. Most of those that aren't are, I wouldn't say sugar-coated, but tactful. In other words, they are a way of expressing an opinion or fact that the author wishes to present as softly and in as non-inflammatory a way as possible. She is clearly taking pains to avoid incensing any of her readers. You said that you would have respected her more if she had been more up front with her criticisms; well, ya can't please everyone, I guess.

As for the article itself, I still think it's more or less complimentary to the Mac. I think it boils down to, "I tried the iMac, and I found some problems with it, but I still liked it overall. It's just that in the end, I liked my PC a little bit more, so I switched back." Even with the inaccuracies, I don't see what the big deal is; this may be where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's actually not accurate at all. In fact, it's quite a deviation, but if that's what you believe the iMac is equivalent to, then it explains a lot about your position here.
No, I like the iMac a lot, and I certainly don't equate it to whatever kind of person it was that I described. I was only trying to make a point, and be funny at the same time, but I guess I only half succeeded.
Suppose, though, that you were that sort of employee. Armed with such strong evidence that you could not be trusted with the job, of course you would expect the damning facts to be stated directly. That's kind of the point. If he's dancing around the issue, making veiled jabs of the sort I posted above, then one might well be suspicious not only of the accuracy of the implications, but also of the ex-boss' motives in trying to imply a state of affairs more negative than what he's willing to overtly commit to.
I understand what you mean, but I still disagree with the employer analogy. It's one of those analogies that seems to fit at first glance, but breaks down upon closer examination (like the Mac-BMW / PC-Camaro analogy or whatever). So I don't think I want to pursue it. In my experience, analogies tend to work best in comparing simpler systems/occurances. Using them in logical arguments to equate complicated scenarios can be very difficult and dangerous.

Alex

Gelfin
Sep 21, 2002, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
At least I can spell it properly. :rolleyes:

Sounds like this is winding down, and I'm not inclined to continue it, but I still feel the need to defend myself on this point. You're no doubt thinking, "Occam." That's an accepted spelling with regard to the philosophical principle, but I've wondered how it got to be so. My assumption is that this is a result of notoriously nonstandardized spelling in middle ages english. However, the appropriate standardized spelling is "Ockham," as in Ockham, Surrey, the village from which William of Ockham hailed.

Incidentally, William was not so vain as to name the principle for himself. He refered to it as the "Law of Parsimony."

Taft
Sep 21, 2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I doubt you would, but I'll take your word for it.


It seems to me that this is really your purpose in arguing here.

You are making an assumption about most Mac users that is not favorable. The assumption is that most Mac users are fanatics completely incapable of unbiased thought and reasoning. This resonates through all of your statements (if MacWorld would have written this with a favorable ending, you would be praising it--I'm paraphrasing, by the way)

Personally, I'm pretty insulted by this. I am a very rational, a very level headed person and I prefer Macs because of rational and concrete reasons. But you assume differently. You assume that I'm a zealot bent on protecting Macs at all costs.

This is simply not the case. I found the article erronous and the overall tone to be a veiled attack on the Mac. But because you saw the article as something else, you immediately start accusing us of being zealots. Thats in poor taste.

If you read my posts, and my original post, you'll see that I certainly didn't agree that this was the worst article ever, but I thought it was a bad article. I'm sure we can find many other articles out there (on a variety of subjects) which our opinions on the quality of the article would differ. In those other cases would you accuse the parties who like the article of being zealots?? I doubt it. But because it is in the context of Macs, you have grouped me, and other rational people such as Gelfin in with the fanatics.

You need to rethink why you are really arguing with us.

And I would think that you would really have looked up Ockham in the dictionary before attacking Gelfin. Almost all have it listed under both spellings with Ockham being as popular and accepted as Occam. Try it: www.dictionary.com

Taft

wake up Jobs!!!
Sep 21, 2002, 09:43 AM
someone should wack this stupid lady over the head with a rubber mallet:rolleyes:
or we can allways tape her mouth shut:D

-GaBe-O

SilvorX
Sep 21, 2002, 12:34 PM
"The iMac came with ClarisWorks"
-What the heck are you talking about ClarisWorks for? They come with AppleWorks! And 90% of people who use office only use 10% of the features it offers, so it is great for home users.
dont worry, i know mac users who refer AppleWorks as ClarisWorks...well actually just the teachers at my school :P clarisworks disappeared years ago lol

alex_ant
Sep 21, 2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Taft
It seems to me that this is really your purpose in arguing here.

.. (blah blah, snip snip)
No, that was only an aside. The thrust of my argument was definitely not that anyone who disagrees with the article is a Mac zealot, and I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about that. I think I laid out my purpose in arguing pretty clearly, and you and Gelfin didn't agree with me, and that's fine.
And I would think that you would really have looked up Ockham in the dictionary before attacking Gelfin. Almost all have it listed under both spellings with Ockham being as popular and accepted as Occam. Try it:
www.dictionary.com
I stand corrected.

Alex

{1984}
Sep 23, 2002, 09:20 PM
i really don't like that review or the lady who wrote it... infact i hate her and her horrid little machine....

Durandal7
Sep 23, 2002, 10:26 PM
All this PC bashing is making Bill sad....

alex_ant
Sep 23, 2002, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
All this PC bashing is making Bill sad....
Whoa! That's not a real human expression, is it?

vniow
Sep 23, 2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Whoa! That's not a real human expression, is it?


Well he's not really human so that doesn't count.:p