Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is Windows so bad?
- Thread starter ldburroughs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I keep hearing these Hellraiser-esque horror stories from certain Mac users about how Windows crashed all the time, deleted their data, burned their house down, and ran over the family dog with their car (before crashing said car into a tree and totalling it). In the meantime, I have NEVER personally met anyone (or even spoken to them) with problems as bad as those I keep reading about. Invariably, the horror stories are even more extreme when told by someone who's primarily a Mac user.
The only thing that makes sense is that these people are exaggerating their experiences, and that through the process of confabulation (yes, this is where the name of Konfabulator came from), they have substituted a weird fantasy of what Windows was like for what it was REALLY like.
The only thing that makes sense is that these people are exaggerating their experiences, and that through the process of confabulation (yes, this is where the name of Konfabulator came from), they have substituted a weird fantasy of what Windows was like for what it was REALLY like.
It works both ways. Massive pinches of salt required when reading testimonials from those committed to either side, but then, this isn't new.clayjohanson said:
It does get annoying -- the antagonist/apologist routine -- those involved never change their stripes, and this is why vBulletin has a handy-dandy ignore feature.
Yeah, I'm trying not to Ignore people, even if they make unnecessarily derogatory comments about Microsoft... kinda hard to retort, even nicely, if you have no idea that they said anything negative.brap said:
Arguing toward a reasonable end, with one who believes you're allied with the enemy is the very definition of futility! Fun for a while, though.clayjohanson said:kinda hard to retort, even nicely, if you have no idea that they said anything negative.
I suppose patience is a virtue. Must have been at the back of the line, or something
Well, I have no realistic hope of converting a hater... but they're not the only ones who read what I have to say.brap said:Arguing toward a reasonable end, with one who believes you're allied with the enemy is the very definition of futility! Fun for a while, though.
I suppose patience is a virtue. Must have been at the back of the line, or something
(And I don't care, really, that they hate, or why... but I like to correct fallacies when I can.)To get back on topic and to state my views, one of the reasons I don't like Windows is the user interface. I'll admit that part of the reason I don't like using Windows is because it is different and trying to do things the same way on Windows as they were done on Mac OS X will lead to frustration. Recognizing this, I'll push aside the tediousness that I have in using Windows as a direct result of because its different since I know that if I came to understand how things are better done on Windows it would not be as difficult.
Now back to the problem of the user interface. The main problem I have with it is that Windows does not have a standard UI that is the example of what a good application looks like and that is one of the things that makes Mac OS X so easy to use. For example, virtually every application on Mac OS X has a place to set your preferences and this is always in the menubar under the application's name which is always between the Apple icon and File. Any time you need to modify how an application works, a Mac OS X user can say "it should be under preferences" and would be correct virtually every time.
Another thing is that Mac OS X has libraries for the UI within the system that many programs can call upon so that they do not have to develop a UI for their application from the ground up as well as guidelines on how UIs in Mac OS X should look and feel like. This helps create a uniform interface and appearance to applications. This was most noticeable to me when I updated from 10.2 to 10.3 and the look of Camino radically changed. It was the same application with the same code, but after the OS update, the toolbar had the new, smooth Panther look instead of the old, pinstriped Jaguar look. Even the tabs changed after the update in Camino. They went from a looking like the tabs on a folder to having a button look to them. And though there is a difference between the brushed metal look and the smooth, Panther look; applications are still laid out the same and function the same.
Now more importantly, not only do each of the programs roughly look the same, they more importantly function the same. The user does not have to make a conscious thought when switching between applications on Mac OS X because whatever application the user switches to is going to function virtually the same (in a UI standpoint) as the application before it. This makes using new software a breeze because it behaves like virtually every other program on Mac OS X.
Windows on the other hand has somewhat of a standard UI, but it is more of a guideline or suggestion instead of "the way things are." Back to preferences, some applications have "Preference" under a menu and others have "Options" and each are under different menus. Some do not have a centralized menu for preferences and you have to hunt and peck through the menus to find where to turn functions on and off in the application. And applications may or may not even have a menubar to look for preferences under. This creates needless difficulty in using the Windows platform. It might be the cause of what is now being referred to as "confabulation" in this thread. I know that when I have a problem in an application and I'm trying to track down the preferences in order to tweak the program or to fix it, I find it very frustrating to have to hunt through each of the menus in the menubar in order to find the preferences or find that the application does not have a menubar and I have to guess what the buttons in the application window mean and what obscure titles mean for the few buttons that are labeled. It elevates me from feeling frustrated to being angry and annoyed. And because every application can and does behave very different from each other, I am left trying to learn how to use each individual application instead of learning how to use applications, period.
Other problems I have with Windows is how its lays things out. I find My Documents makes organizing files more difficult than saving files to the desktop does since everything is jumbled together in a folder which is harder for me personally to organize and clean up than a jumbled desktop. I always find it easier to take things from the desktop and put them in a proper place than doing so from within a folder. And I find the need for applications in Windows to put aliases/shortcuts on the desktop to be extremely annoying. Also arranging the icons left side instead of the right side of the desktop fosters an air of inefficiency. When I use a real desk, I tend to work/write on the left side and put my papers, stapler, pencils, etc on the right side since its easier for me to grab things with my right hand. I use my mouse on the right side of the keyboard and when I click on icons and drag files and folders, it mentally feels like I'm doing so with my right hand. With icons on the right hand side, I'm already using mental habits from using a real desk in using my computer's desktop. And this leads into the maximized application that takes up the entire screen. I know that you can adjust the size of the application's window, but applications are meant to be viewed and used at full screen and are laid out accordingly. And applications that are full screen are like icons on the left side of the desktop; they violate the idea of the computer as a virtual desktop. I prefer having an application open in the left side of the window with the desktop and icons available on the right side for access. Because of this, I have placed my dock on the right side of the screen instead of on the bottom.
And while I was using Windows today, another problem came up for me. I hate how Windows implements User Accounts on their computers. What's the point of having different users if what I do in my account affects other accounts? If I install an application, everybody's account gets that stupid shortcut on the desktop. If I remove the shortcut from my account, it's removed from everybody's desktop. And I don't like how an application will work in one account but doesn't in another account. The only difference I could tell between the accounts is one's an administrator's account and the other isn't. The application isn't modifying anything at a system level, so why should it need to be run under an administrator's account?
Oh, and for everybody that says things like "I know how to run Windows and it runs great for me and is stable," and then list half a dozen things they do to keep the computer stable and half a dozen Microsoft written apps to avoid; computer's shouldn't require specialized knowledge to run. Why should a computer be harder to use than a motor vehicle? If car companies made cars like Microsoft made computers, we'd only have one window to look out of the car, we'd have a wrench for a steering wheel, we'd have to be careful of driving in seedy neighborhoods lest somebody jumps in the car with us, we'd have to replace the standard Microsoft window, doors, and locks to reduce the risk of somebody stealing our car, and we'd have to be our own mechanics to keep the engine from breaking down.
But do all of these problems that I have listed make Windows unusable? No. Less usable? Yes, or at least for me it does. In the end, no matter how pretty or stable Windows XP becomes, every time I use it, it always feels like an application launcher to me and Mac OS X feels more like an operating system. In Mac OS X, I feel like the applications are integrated with the OS and with each other whereas in XP, I feel like applications are standalones that operate separately from each other.
Now back to the problem of the user interface. The main problem I have with it is that Windows does not have a standard UI that is the example of what a good application looks like and that is one of the things that makes Mac OS X so easy to use. For example, virtually every application on Mac OS X has a place to set your preferences and this is always in the menubar under the application's name which is always between the Apple icon and File. Any time you need to modify how an application works, a Mac OS X user can say "it should be under preferences" and would be correct virtually every time.
Another thing is that Mac OS X has libraries for the UI within the system that many programs can call upon so that they do not have to develop a UI for their application from the ground up as well as guidelines on how UIs in Mac OS X should look and feel like. This helps create a uniform interface and appearance to applications. This was most noticeable to me when I updated from 10.2 to 10.3 and the look of Camino radically changed. It was the same application with the same code, but after the OS update, the toolbar had the new, smooth Panther look instead of the old, pinstriped Jaguar look. Even the tabs changed after the update in Camino. They went from a looking like the tabs on a folder to having a button look to them. And though there is a difference between the brushed metal look and the smooth, Panther look; applications are still laid out the same and function the same.
Now more importantly, not only do each of the programs roughly look the same, they more importantly function the same. The user does not have to make a conscious thought when switching between applications on Mac OS X because whatever application the user switches to is going to function virtually the same (in a UI standpoint) as the application before it. This makes using new software a breeze because it behaves like virtually every other program on Mac OS X.
Windows on the other hand has somewhat of a standard UI, but it is more of a guideline or suggestion instead of "the way things are." Back to preferences, some applications have "Preference" under a menu and others have "Options" and each are under different menus. Some do not have a centralized menu for preferences and you have to hunt and peck through the menus to find where to turn functions on and off in the application. And applications may or may not even have a menubar to look for preferences under. This creates needless difficulty in using the Windows platform. It might be the cause of what is now being referred to as "confabulation" in this thread. I know that when I have a problem in an application and I'm trying to track down the preferences in order to tweak the program or to fix it, I find it very frustrating to have to hunt through each of the menus in the menubar in order to find the preferences or find that the application does not have a menubar and I have to guess what the buttons in the application window mean and what obscure titles mean for the few buttons that are labeled. It elevates me from feeling frustrated to being angry and annoyed. And because every application can and does behave very different from each other, I am left trying to learn how to use each individual application instead of learning how to use applications, period.
Other problems I have with Windows is how its lays things out. I find My Documents makes organizing files more difficult than saving files to the desktop does since everything is jumbled together in a folder which is harder for me personally to organize and clean up than a jumbled desktop. I always find it easier to take things from the desktop and put them in a proper place than doing so from within a folder. And I find the need for applications in Windows to put aliases/shortcuts on the desktop to be extremely annoying. Also arranging the icons left side instead of the right side of the desktop fosters an air of inefficiency. When I use a real desk, I tend to work/write on the left side and put my papers, stapler, pencils, etc on the right side since its easier for me to grab things with my right hand. I use my mouse on the right side of the keyboard and when I click on icons and drag files and folders, it mentally feels like I'm doing so with my right hand. With icons on the right hand side, I'm already using mental habits from using a real desk in using my computer's desktop. And this leads into the maximized application that takes up the entire screen. I know that you can adjust the size of the application's window, but applications are meant to be viewed and used at full screen and are laid out accordingly. And applications that are full screen are like icons on the left side of the desktop; they violate the idea of the computer as a virtual desktop. I prefer having an application open in the left side of the window with the desktop and icons available on the right side for access. Because of this, I have placed my dock on the right side of the screen instead of on the bottom.
And while I was using Windows today, another problem came up for me. I hate how Windows implements User Accounts on their computers. What's the point of having different users if what I do in my account affects other accounts? If I install an application, everybody's account gets that stupid shortcut on the desktop. If I remove the shortcut from my account, it's removed from everybody's desktop. And I don't like how an application will work in one account but doesn't in another account. The only difference I could tell between the accounts is one's an administrator's account and the other isn't. The application isn't modifying anything at a system level, so why should it need to be run under an administrator's account?
Oh, and for everybody that says things like "I know how to run Windows and it runs great for me and is stable," and then list half a dozen things they do to keep the computer stable and half a dozen Microsoft written apps to avoid; computer's shouldn't require specialized knowledge to run. Why should a computer be harder to use than a motor vehicle? If car companies made cars like Microsoft made computers, we'd only have one window to look out of the car, we'd have a wrench for a steering wheel, we'd have to be careful of driving in seedy neighborhoods lest somebody jumps in the car with us, we'd have to replace the standard Microsoft window, doors, and locks to reduce the risk of somebody stealing our car, and we'd have to be our own mechanics to keep the engine from breaking down.
But do all of these problems that I have listed make Windows unusable? No. Less usable? Yes, or at least for me it does. In the end, no matter how pretty or stable Windows XP becomes, every time I use it, it always feels like an application launcher to me and Mac OS X feels more like an operating system. In Mac OS X, I feel like the applications are integrated with the OS and with each other whereas in XP, I feel like applications are standalones that operate separately from each other.
^^ It's the middleware my friend. I personally like the wide user base that XP has. It allows for a crapload of software. Good software. Of course. Bad software too tho--which means it requires some good knowledge of what to use and what NOT to use.
Two...um, using a computer is ALWAYS going to be easier than using a car. You can get into car accidents in a car. You have insurance premiums. You can kill people, yourself, animals, etc. with a car. Not to mention they cost 4 to 5 digits.
The 16 year old girl with the SUV? Infinitely more dangerous than a 16 year old with Windows XP and IE.
Two...um, using a computer is ALWAYS going to be easier than using a car. You can get into car accidents in a car. You have insurance premiums. You can kill people, yourself, animals, etc. with a car. Not to mention they cost 4 to 5 digits.
The 16 year old girl with the SUV? Infinitely more dangerous than a 16 year old with Windows XP and IE.
I think the biggest advance that OS X has over XP is that the GUI is 3D accelerated so it's able to do some pretty fancy things without slowing down like it would if it were implemented in windows. This alone makes OS X a good half generation ahead of XP in terms of OS technology
It's not what Windows does, but what Apple does better
For me, it was never really that Windows sucks, just that doing some things on a Mac are much better (for me, at least).
After building my own machines for years, and running XP home and pro for around 3-4 of them, I was bored with Windows. So I switched.
Just a few things I think are so much better, can be seen in things like using Mail to start an IM with people, or using expose to find that random browser window, quicksilver to get at any file/application I need. It's things like dragging a file into an iChat window to send it, instead of loading it from some menu. Both work, one just seems much more intuitive. It's not loading a huge suite of Canon software onto my machine to load images from my camera, because iPhoto does it for me, and at the click of a visible button can burn them to a cd or load them into a mail message (after allowing me to scale them down for size).
Networking in particular has been so much easier, especially with wireless networks. I've set up several friends networks for them, and on each occaision had to download a hex generator for the wep passkeys, because one of their machines configuration utility (which was never the windows one) inevitably wouldn't take the passphrase. Granted that's a general wep problem, but I've never had it on my Mac, and now whenever I set up networks I always do it from my Mac first.
I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the stuff I do so easily on my powerbook now can be done simply on an XP machine, but I've had my Mac for less than a year compared to the 4 I had with XP, and never found it. I believe that is just as convincing an argument as any right there.
And to those of you who do a good job maintaining your Windows box properly, I think that's great. But as you quickly point out that most Mac people don't know nearly as much about Windows as they think (which of course could simply be a side effect of that whole intuitiveness aspect I mentioned above), I believe the same could be said about almost all Windows users about their OWN machines, and that's the problem.
For me, it was never really that Windows sucks, just that doing some things on a Mac are much better (for me, at least).
After building my own machines for years, and running XP home and pro for around 3-4 of them, I was bored with Windows. So I switched.
Just a few things I think are so much better, can be seen in things like using Mail to start an IM with people, or using expose to find that random browser window, quicksilver to get at any file/application I need. It's things like dragging a file into an iChat window to send it, instead of loading it from some menu. Both work, one just seems much more intuitive. It's not loading a huge suite of Canon software onto my machine to load images from my camera, because iPhoto does it for me, and at the click of a visible button can burn them to a cd or load them into a mail message (after allowing me to scale them down for size).
Networking in particular has been so much easier, especially with wireless networks. I've set up several friends networks for them, and on each occaision had to download a hex generator for the wep passkeys, because one of their machines configuration utility (which was never the windows one) inevitably wouldn't take the passphrase. Granted that's a general wep problem, but I've never had it on my Mac, and now whenever I set up networks I always do it from my Mac first.
I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the stuff I do so easily on my powerbook now can be done simply on an XP machine, but I've had my Mac for less than a year compared to the 4 I had with XP, and never found it. I believe that is just as convincing an argument as any right there.
And to those of you who do a good job maintaining your Windows box properly, I think that's great. But as you quickly point out that most Mac people don't know nearly as much about Windows as they think (which of course could simply be a side effect of that whole intuitiveness aspect I mentioned above), I believe the same could be said about almost all Windows users about their OWN machines, and that's the problem.
Timelessblur said:
You are SO full of [excrement deleted]. Windows users bash anything that's even involved with Macintosh. 95% of them have never even touched, let alone use a Mac.
"MAc Sucks." Wow, great arguement. "I hate Macs." Uh huh. "Macs are so expensive." Yeah, that's why we get what we pay for. "There's no software support for the Mac." Yeah, I can list three websites with enough freeware to blow the door's off of MicroSoft's Campus, let alone cheap and efficient shareware. "There's no gaming support on a Mac." MMhm. We may not have SOME titles, but it's expanded recently.
What's funny. is that for a high-end gaming PC, like Alienware, you'll spend more than on the highest-end Mac.
Linux "zealots" are second, because "if you're not using the command-line you're a stupid human being and shouldn't own a computer." I'm sorry, but if I wanted to schedule CRON tasks, I'd like to have an app that takes three seconds and two-less mouse clicks to set up, and not have to go through typing in 50 lines of code.
Mac users, for the most part, have used Windows and know that they can't stand it. So of course they're going to bash the hell out of something they can't stand, that caused them too much lost data, or refused them the creativity they yearned for, or made them frustrated and angry and lose they're temper, all because that important email they were going to send out couldn't be sent because "OUTLOOK IS NOT RESPONDING...."
At least Mac users have REASONS. I haven't found one person, NOT ONE, that used OS X for more than a month that didn't like it over Windows.
bizarre
But still, what will happen if/when malware somehow gets into the system? Even though a huge number of the pathways for infection have been closed by proper design of the OS, perhaps there is some potential for an internet worm to spread. (It would also have to practically be a rootkit - capable of defeating the "User must enter password to install" sequence.)
Well, unless the infection immediately deletes the user's personal files (which is rare for a virus these days), the worst it can do is corrupt the system and render it unusable. If that happens, it's a much, much less painful operation to reinstall the OS on a Mac while preserving user data, than it is on a Windows machine. All you need to do is select "archive and install" from the setup program.
In the case of more insidious items like spyware or autodialers or keyloggers or sniffers, well, the OS X community will just have to come up with an OS X equivalent to ZoneAlarm and AdAware. Once the infections arrive, your only choice is to develop countermeasures.
But the present situation is interesting. It's not like there are zero kiddie hackers out there using macs. Given the history of Apple, there have surely ALWAYS been kiddie hackers out there on the platform. Yet we see ZERO viruses, ZERO spyware, ZERO trojans. Not ten, three, or one. ZERO.
Yeah, this is an interesting question. ...Though it's an inherently biased one, because even if most OS X users are reduced to flailing in panic when a virus hits their system, that only lowers them to the level of Windows users -- certainly no lower. (If you want to judge the relative incompetence of an 85-year-old bingo-playing grandmother websurfing on a Mac versus one websurfing on a PC, there ain't much to say.)ChrisBrightwell said:
But still, what will happen if/when malware somehow gets into the system? Even though a huge number of the pathways for infection have been closed by proper design of the OS, perhaps there is some potential for an internet worm to spread. (It would also have to practically be a rootkit - capable of defeating the "User must enter password to install" sequence.)
Well, unless the infection immediately deletes the user's personal files (which is rare for a virus these days), the worst it can do is corrupt the system and render it unusable. If that happens, it's a much, much less painful operation to reinstall the OS on a Mac while preserving user data, than it is on a Windows machine. All you need to do is select "archive and install" from the setup program.
In the case of more insidious items like spyware or autodialers or keyloggers or sniffers, well, the OS X community will just have to come up with an OS X equivalent to ZoneAlarm and AdAware. Once the infections arrive, your only choice is to develop countermeasures.
But the present situation is interesting. It's not like there are zero kiddie hackers out there using macs. Given the history of Apple, there have surely ALWAYS been kiddie hackers out there on the platform. Yet we see ZERO viruses, ZERO spyware, ZERO trojans. Not ten, three, or one. ZERO.
Windows
Its not completely true that there is no viruses for macs. Sure the chances are a lot less and a knowledgeable user will rarely encounter them, but the time is comming when we mac users will have to accept that the target is growing. Somone who believes they are not a target has hit me on their forhead.
Also one reason I don't use windows is that there are so many things you have to learn to be classified as an "experienced user" or you will destroy the OS. With a mac, you turn it on, learn things as you go. And besides at least when you turn off a mac you don't press a start button to quit.
Its not completely true that there is no viruses for macs. Sure the chances are a lot less and a knowledgeable user will rarely encounter them, but the time is comming when we mac users will have to accept that the target is growing. Somone who believes they are not a target has hit me on their forhead.
Also one reason I don't use windows is that there are so many things you have to learn to be classified as an "experienced user" or you will destroy the OS. With a mac, you turn it on, learn things as you go. And besides at least when you turn off a mac you don't press a start button to quit.
Hi there. Nice to meet you. I'm one of the people you claim doesn't exist... the user who's used both OS X and Windows and still prefers Windows. OS X is nice, sure, but I still prefer Windows. Why? I just do. Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with Windows. Maybe it's because I'm capable of "digging under the hood" and tinkering with Windows' registry and other low-level Windows functionality. Maybe I prefer the Windows interface. Maybe I'm a smart enough user that I know how to make Windows run flawlessly, so that individual machines remain up for months at a time between reboots (which is better than my Mac mini, which has kernel panicked twice in the last month for no apparent reason).Onizuka said:
Oh, and I don't slam the Mac. I will occasionally slam certain Mac USERS for sounding like evangelists, but I have no problem with Apple itself. They make good tools; computers are tools, nothing more. I happen to prefer Windows. I won't make any judgment regarding which OS is "better", because that varies from user to user and situation to situation.
I hope you're not another victim of Windows confabulation, but it sounds like you might be.
Onizuka said:
Read it again. You will noticed I stated Zealots. I hate them all I just hate the mac ones the most.
Windows and Linux zealots I know for a fact I can turn to for help if I am having a problem with the computer and they do at least know thier own OS really well.
Now lets look at apple Zealots. I have a problem with OSX I can not always turn to them for help because a lot of them dont know thier own OS as well as a standard windows or linus Zealot. A good exaple is my friend who is a Apple zealots and has the standard apple can do not wrong and apple way is alwasy the best ect. He is having a problem with his ipod where the computer monts it but itunes will not see it. He does a hard reset on his iPod and all that, I suggest why dont you try rebooting you computer. I get an aditude back like it can not be OSX. He calls apple care and guess what they told him. Reboot you computer, he reboot and it was fixed. Rebooting falls under the catigory of basic tech support, I dont care what OS you use rebooting still falls under basic tech support.
A windows and linux Zealot when they call tech support (unlikely they will even bother to call them they know where to get better help) dont need the scripted answers that all lv 1 tech support is. Apple zealot well they may use scripted tech support.
But clearly you missed the point of the post no where in thier did I say windows, linus or apple users. The average windows and mac user dont give a rats ass about OS. linux a lot of them dont car but they genral know windows pretty well and they dont really bash windows. I stated Zealots which is a diffent catigor in it self.
Well you don't need to hit the start button in windows if all you want to do is shutdown the puter. All you need to hit is the power button on your pc and it should power off correctly from windows.g5_11 said:And besides at least when you turn off a mac you don't press a start button to quit.
I don't usually bash everything thats involved with Macs infact I have my own old Mac clone right now and a Mac LC III, but I don't like Mac OS GUI compared to windows GUI.Onizuka said:
indeed thats right but I'm betting those high end alienware run alot more games better the the high end Macs + they have alot more flexibity with the Graphics cards on the market.
I used Mac OS (note I have yet to use mac OSX do I don't know whats changed in the GUI state of it) a couple times before and now, but like I said before I just san't stand how the GUI works. and windows hasn't made me get so mad that I would want to sell all x86\windows boxes for a ppc\mac pc. I've had a few problems but I've overcome them with my own expernice and getting help at forums and learning about computers in general.
Timelessblur said:
So I guess we should rename this site to bunchamacidiots.com and put the catch phrase of "Your Source For Mac Stupidity," because you said most mac zealots are ignorant ("a lot of them dont know thier own OS") about their computers and from what I've noticed from reading your posts is that if you like Apple's products and their OS, then you're a Mac Zealot. It doesn't matter if you've been in the tech industry for 10 - 20 years and have used every flavor of Windows and Mac OS as well as other OSes. Or if you can do an accurate point by point comparison of every notable OS because if you think Mac OS X is better than Windows XP, you're just another silly Mac Zealot who's too stupid to know how to use Windows properly.
Timelessblur said:
Well, Linux is quite understandably going to have a user base who on average is far more interested in OSes than Windows and Mac users. It has for the most part been a hobbyist's OS and using it has meant becoming an OS developer to an extent. The Windows and Mac OSes are generally completed products that need no user intervention in order to give it stability and functionability. This isn't to say Linux isn't a good OS, but just that its an open source OS that is still being developed.
Timelessblur said:
Oh, and have you ever considered that your mac user friends become zealots in your eyes because you have an attitude against them and you patronize them into becoming defensive about their computer? It would explain why nobody would be willing to help you with Mac OS problems and would be unwilling to take your advice on something even if they knew it was correct.
And there is a question that has been bugging me for some time. If you hate Mac Zealots with a passion, and from your posts, it would seem whoever likes and supports Apple and Macs are a zealot, why do you read and post on a mac discussion forum? From all of the posts that I have read of yours, there is nothing to suggest that you own, operate, or are considering owning or operating a Mac. In fact, a majority of your posts seem to tout how great Microsoft and Longhorn will be and how everybody else in the thread is a Mac Zealot. I mean, if you were a Windows user curious about Mac OS X and Apple computers and you wanted to expand your knowledge on computers, that would be one thing (and a great thing because it would enrich this forum with a diversity of knowledge and ideas), but this does not seem to be your goal at all. To me, it seems like you're mostly occupied in slamming Apple products and insulting people for enjoying something other than Windows. You've been calling everybody on this site a Mac Zealot, well, I call you a Windows Zealot. You're a Windows Zealot who is just as bad as the worst Mac Zealot because you're purposefully going on a Mac site and starting arguments and then whoever counters you with facts, you deride them with names and calling them a zealot. If you don't like Apple, you don't like Macs, you don't like Mac OS, and you don't like Mac Users, maybe you should consider posting on forums about things you actually do like.
thank you again for missing my point.
Mac Zealots are the ones who think Apple can do no wrong, Steve Jobs is god ect. A lot of people do not fall under Zealot. I stated that if I need help I can not go ask any Zealot because their is to high of a chance that the person does not know what he talking about or can not help you. To many Zealots have to use lv 1 tech support them selves making them poor help.
Where did I say all? NO WHERE.
Where did I say that you had to say XP was better? AGAIN NO WHERE.
You dont know my friend I do trust me I do.
Btw you dont even know what I consider a windows Zealot. Have you noticed I never bash mac. most of the time I am correcting them on blanted errors. Windows, Linux, and apple Zealots refuse to see any thing good in the others OSs.
Mac Zealots are the ones who think Apple can do no wrong, Steve Jobs is god ect. A lot of people do not fall under Zealot. I stated that if I need help I can not go ask any Zealot because their is to high of a chance that the person does not know what he talking about or can not help you. To many Zealots have to use lv 1 tech support them selves making them poor help.
Where did I say all? NO WHERE.
Where did I say that you had to say XP was better? AGAIN NO WHERE.
You dont know my friend I do trust me I do.
Btw you dont even know what I consider a windows Zealot. Have you noticed I never bash mac. most of the time I am correcting them on blanted errors. Windows, Linux, and apple Zealots refuse to see any thing good in the others OSs.
This surprises me, Timelessblur. Common sense tells me the exact opposite would be true for zealots - i.e. they're the ones least likely to need technical support, let alone introductory-level technical support.Timelessblur said:
While we're on the subject of things that are bothersome about Windows, one of my pet peeves is that Windows doesn't have a particularly intuitive system for ejecting USB thumb drives and similar hardware.
To eject a USB thumb drive on Windows XP:
1. Find the "Safely Remove Hardware" icon in the System Tray. You might need to expand the system tray first if you have unused icons hidden. The icon looks like a disk with a green arrow above it.
2. Double-click it (or right-click it and choose "Safely Remove Hardware" from the menu that appears - it's the only option) - the Safely Remove Hardware dialog box opens.
3. Select the device to eject (Windows calls this "stopping the device") and click Stop.
4. A confirmation dialog appears showing the device you selected along with any sub-components that will also be stopped. Click OK to stop the device(s).
5a. If stopping the device was successful, you'll get a little pop-up notification that you can remove it safely now in the system tray.
5b. If stopping failed for some reason, you'll also get a notification in the system tray - this one usually says that the device is busy, so it couldn't be stopped right now. Sometimes, it's not immediately apparent why Windows considers the device busy. If that's the case, it'll usually succeed if you retry 5-10 seconds later.
The same procedure in Mac OS X:
1a. Drag the device's icon to the Trash. The trash can becomes an eject icon when you start dragging.
OR 1b. Click the little eject symbol next to the device's icon in a Finder window.
2a. CDs and such will automatically eject. Other devices will switch off - when that happens, you can remove them. Mac OS X doesn't notify you.
2b. If ejecting fails, Mac OS X will helpfully tell you which application is using a file on the device. If more than one application is using file(s) on the device, you'll be notified of only one of them (I don't know how Mac OS X decides which application to notify you of).
wrldwzrd89 said:
I actually found that left-mouse clicking the icon (Safely Remove [blah blah] Drive X: ) is the fastest way. I found this out when I was using the on-campus Dells (right-click is disabled). I was stunned, b/c I always thought you had to do the double-click method.
This is of, of course, assuming you don't have more than one storage device in there.
Timelessblur said:
I know it's not common knowledge, but Mac is better. Period. We don't need anyone to come along and point out flaws, because anyone with half a brain can find flaws. There are some opinions that are invalid because they are just stupid. First, if you thought Hitler was a hero, you are stupid. A close second is, "Windows is just as good as Mac OS" or the slightly modified "they are just good at different things". Yes, Windows is good at being high maintenance. Windows and Mac OS are not just good at different things- Mac OS is better. It's not perfect, but for right now it's damn close. Knowing that and accepting that should be a prerequisite for posting here because if you think otherwise you are: (a) a fool (b) a stubborn fool or (c) a masochistic "no one ever listens to me even though I am smarter than them and no I don't have a small penis" stubborn fool.
Windows blows. Linux is a hobby. I buy a computer to USE IT (what a concept) so I don't want to spend time tweaking, maintaining, compiling, praying, etc. I have used them all extensively, but I shouldn't have to qualify my statements with that information. I am embarrassed to admit that I struggled with other operating systems and hardware for years because the people that have only used Macs are smarter and more fortunate than I am for securing themselves years of productivity without all the heartache. You wouldn't consider a TV that broke down all the time superior just because it got some local access channel from Montana that showed goat porn. If Apple made items for the entire house I would buy them because every Apple item I have ever purchased has been superior to any competing product that I have owned. This is not a religion and we are not zealots. It's common damn sense. It that is a religion, I was not aware. And for the record, it's blatant- not blanted-errors.