For the longest time I used to hate all Apple/Mac products 110%, I was a linux fanboy. I used to work for a printing company that was 50/50 Mac/Windows and the Mac users would totally irritate me with their irrelevant Mac love. At least I thought their love and admiration for Mac was irrelevant.
Here's where you explain how "irrelevant mac love" makes any sense. How can love be irrelevant?
At the time the Macs were running PowerPC processors and OS 9 classic as the OS which were inferrior to the Intel CPUs and Windows.
Really. I think there are many thousands who would disagree with you heartily on both points. Particularly in the "classic" Mac OS era, PowerPC processors were far from inferior. In fact, they were far more efficient.... and were far superior in many regards. The original PowerPC, especially, was leaps and bounds ahead of rival x86 CPUs; subsequent iterations only improved upon this. From the 604e (ran circles around the Pentium, and MMX didn't help at all, being both impossibly difficult to code for, and tied to the FPU- the 604e's heavy-duty FPU out-Photoshopped the Pentium Pro easily as traipsing through a garden), to the 750 (G3), to the 7400 (G4).
The G3 ran about 10-15% faster clock for clock than did the Pentium III, and of course the Willamette-based Pentium 4 was a joke (or a nightmare, depending on how you look at it). Throw in Intel's backing of RDRAM, and you're looking at a very amusing scenario; a 1.4-1.6 GHz Pentium 4 that's outgunned by a 900 MHz Pentium III, and running memory which costs about four times much as the competition- and isn't necessary, because memory bandwidth of that magnitude wasn't yet being demanded by Intel's CPUs.
When AltiVec hit, it naturally made MMX look like even more of a joke.... and it was superior even to SSE and SSE2. Granted, the rivalry between AMD and Intel meant that Apple was left far, far behind in the MHz war, but their processors, at least from a design standpoint, were still superior (with AMD also being naturally far superior to Intel's shoddy engineering).
What possible structured argument against PowerPC or for Intel's x86 could you possibly have?
As for the classic Mac OS, please. Windows is, and has always been (since Windows 3.1) a poor imitation of the Macintosh operating system. System 7 was a great OS; Windows 3.1 was a joke. Mac OS 8.1 was another leap forward.... Windows 95 was playing catch-up, and poorly. You have zero argument.
I don't care what anyone says, It's my opinion not a start of a flame war here. My opinion is that Mac OS classic is dogbarf unfit for any or all computing tasks. Systems running Mac OS classic should be destroyed on sight.
For someone not wanting to start a flame war, you have a funny way of showing it. You're on a Mac forum... many of us here have been faithfully (and very happily) using Macs for 10, 15, even 20 years, and were very fond of the Classic Mac OS... and especially the Classic Happy Mac on startup. Mac OS Classic was far ahead of its time. Windows, again, was trying to copy it... and was doing so quite poorly. My guess is you really have no idea what you're talking about. I have four or five computers at home with the Classic Mac OS; I'd be a little miffed if you went after them with a sledgehammer.
Right now I don't totally hate Mac but I don't love it totally either.
Well that's cute...
But with Mac OS X running on top of an OS that I love, unix, I don't have much to complain anymore. And now that Apple has shut up about the fact that CPU frequency isn't the most important factor for CPU performance, which it is, I'm not so peeved so more either.
Hm. I think a great many people.... who are a great deal more informed than you are, I daresay.... would disagree with you on clock frequency. Go to someplace like Ars Technica, and do some reading. Or are you suggesting you'd rather use a 3 GHz Prescott-based Pentium 4 over a 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2, which would naturally run circles around it (dual core or single). Please, you're embarrassing yourself. Hasn't intel and AMD made it clear that clockspeed isn't all-important? AMD was kicking Intel's tail for years at significantly lower clocks; Intel finally caught on (or perhaps it realized consumers had), and dropped clocks down to about half what they'd been with the Pentium 4, for a much better performer (the Pentium III-based Pentium M, and then the Intel Core).
Also most of all, since they trashed the horrible PowerPC processor and went to Intel processors, which are awesome, you can run just about any operating system you want on your Macintosh. (With Boot Camp)
You're such a tool. What do you even know about the PowerPC architecture? Probably next to nothing.
It's actually funny how the times change. Mac OS X is fantastic, Windows Vista is garbage and systems running Vista should be destroyed on sight.
Right, because WindowsME was a great product. And so was Win 3.1 And Win95. Give me a break. The only halfway decent Windows product was Windows 2000, and even that had problems for the first few Service packs (WindowsXP had even more problems than Vista when it started out). It's reasonable now, on SP3.
Get a clue.
