Saturday Audience Participation
What's interesting about Apple computers is that they've always depicted themselves as the anti-establishment brand. Here's their breakthrough commercial for the Apple Macintosh showing a desolate Orwellian dystopia freed by a lone dissident. Apple continues to relish in their outsider status as reflected in this recent marketing campaign with the hipster Apple vs. the corporate PC. This advertising strategy has surely resonated with an eager public, especially young individuals who buy into this anti-conformity.
But those that buy Mac primarily to eschew the masses' uniformity ironically adhere to the mores of a slightly smaller cohort. That's the problem with SWPLs and hipsters: they merely exchange one means of conforming for another, with the latter premised entirely on disavowing the more obvious manner of conforming. In buying Mac and then gleefully showing it off around town, one doesn't signal his "dare to be different" attitude. Instead, one advertises a rather fragile ego dependent on the positive social reinforcement of others.
Obviously, I've never understood the appeal of Apple computers. The interface is non-intuitive and my PC computers have always worked fine, not to mention the higher price. I imagine there are some that buy Mac because they prefer the brand, but many do so with the intention skewered in this The Onion article.
Today's question: excluding your iPod, iPhone, or iPad, is your main computer PC or Mac? And why?
35 comments:
I think Eliezer Yudkowsky made an intelligent point on these issues:
"Lonely dissent doesn't feel like going to school dressed in black. It feels like going to school wearing a clown suit.
That's the difference between joining the rebellion and leaving the pack. . . .
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's fakeness . . . Well, lonely dissent has got to be one of the most commonly, most ostentatiously faked characteristics around. Everyone wants to be an iconoclast."
PC. My first computer, in the 80s, was the first Mac. However, all the businesses I worked for used PCs, and there were file and diskette compatibility issues, so I soon bought a PC. Once you knew DOS, PCs were actually easier to use than Macs, where a lot of useful functions were hidden. Since PCs are cheaper, I've never switched back, even though all my initial reasons for switching are now non-issues.
My wife and kids prefer Macs. They're better looking, more stable, and have better video and photo software, all of which appeal to my wife. The kids, especially the trend-sensitive younger one, appreciate their value as SWPL status symbols, too.
I am considering a MacBook Pro for my next computer, but will probably be reined in as usual by the price differential. All I really use are the Office programs, browsers and iTunes, so why pay extra?
I had a an iMac (I think it was called) at one time, and found that despite claims for total compatibility with PCs, lots of things didn't work well. Then, 18 months after I got it, it broke, repairs would have cost hundreds of dollars, so I ditched it for a PC. Of course that it broke isn't germane to the PC vs Apple debate, but it made an impression on me.
Anyway, I don't see what the fuss is about. My PC works fine and I have no desire to switch.
http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/
Mac. I need a UNIX environment to do work on it, and the OS is more user-friendly than Linux for when I'm not working.
I have only ever had Macs. Back when they first came out, they seemed more reliable and had better features and graphics, etc. Also, once you get started with a brand, you tend to stay with it out of just inertia. If you make movies, music on your computer etc, the Mac seems easier but that could be just anecdotal. I actually liked OS9 better than OSX. It wouldn't really matter if I like Mac better or not, my husband is a Mac fan and he does all the free support, so hey. He uses PC's all day at work and has ever since they started using PC's instead of mainframes. Oh, and we are not now, nor have we ever been hipsters by any stretch of the imagination, so I find that characterization of Mac users pretty funny. The mac lovers I know are the the most staid introvert types you could ever know.
My father is about the fiercest Apple partisan there is. He has used primarly a Mac since the mid-80's. When compatibility issues started arising in his business he bought a PC, hooked it up to the same monitor, and toggled between them with a switch. Over the years, as the compatibility issues decreased, he integrated the machines more and more and now he just runs both operating systems on one computer. To tease him I like pointing out that John Hodgman is funnier than Justin Long. He is about the farthest thing from a SWPL, though, and I think we can forgive his partisanship as genuine.
Obviously, though, I was raised using Macs, and it was Windows that I found less "intuitive" when I was forced to learn it in high school. To me it seems like an argument of whether having the driver on the left or right side of the automobile makes more sense. Both work fine where they're used but it's tough doing what you're not used to.
"Back when they first came out, they seemed more reliable and had better features and graphics, etc. Also, once you get started with a brand, you tend to stay with it out of just inertia. If you make movies, music on your computer etc, the Mac seems easier but that could be just anecdotal."
It's not anecdotal, it's branding. This whole "Mac vs. PC" thing is marketing too. Don't you mean Mac vs. Windows? Or maybe Mac vs. Dell? Hmm. Anyway, the South Park episode "Raisins" has an amusing take on "nonconformists".
"It's not anecdotal, it's branding."
I was actually speaking from personal experience trying to make movies, presentations etc. which is what I meant by anecdotal.
The other point about graphics was when pentium would advertise pc products, the commercials themselves were made on macs. Okay, that is an anecdote, and there might be reasons other than just capability that the creators chose macs, but still it is kinda funny.
The Mac vs. Pc scenario sometimes reminds me a lot of my friends who drive the Toyota Prius.
There are plenty of cars out there that come close to the gas mileage the Prius gets, and cost a lot less. It seems to be more about them making a statement than driving a car that can get close to the same miles per gallon and be just as environmentally friendly overall.
That being said, my first computer was a Mac. I like them, but I own a PC because of work.
Instead, one advertises a rather fragile ego dependent on the positive social reinforcement of others.
SWPLs aren't the only subculture guilty of doing that...
I've never understood the appeal of Apple computers. The interface is non-intuitive and my PC computers have always worked fine,
I prefer PC because that's what I'm used to working on and Mac doesn't offer enough tangible advantages to convince me to switch over.
"I was actually speaking from personal experience trying to make movies, presentations etc. which is what I meant by anecdotal."
What I meant is that what you thought was your objective personal experience could have just been confirmation bias primed by good branding. Apple has been consistently running a tremendously successful marketing campaign as "the easy-to-use brand for hip, fun, creative people NOT overclocking gamer nerds and spreadsheet jockeys" for over a decade, and it has only sporadically been true. The only people worth advertising to are those who haven't already chosen a brand, and the vast majority of these are young affluent SWPL types who care very dearly "what my computer says about me." Hence Microsoft's recent campaigns targeting the exact same demo. In reality, the difference between the two for the average user in this demo is basically nil.
BTW 1, is it just a coincidence that you post this the week Apple's market value surpassed Microsoft's?
curious that yu would lump all PC brands together
Upon further reflection, Apple has occupied the chief "outsider" position for decades while their arch-nemesis continues to change from Big Blue (personal computer hardware) to Microsoft (operating systems, music downloading) to Google (smart phones). In all cases Apple had first-mover advantage in the particular field yet still positioned themselves as an outsider. You certainly can't fault them for being inconsistent in their branding.
Macs are overpriced. No thanks.
I use a Mac at home and a PC at work. The Mac advantages that get mentioned most are the lack of viruses, lack of crashes, and compatibility of software. The thing I like best about the Mac is that it boots up instantly compared to a windows machine.
A Mac was the first computer I used, back in the MacPlus era (mid/late 80s), and I've just stuck with them since then. They are the computers that I learned to use computers with, so their system architecture/user interface makes sense to me.
I am not a hardcore user, programmer, etc. I like the stability, freedom from viruses, and the overall aesthetic. They are more expensive on a per-machine basis, but if you buy a new computer only every 8-10 years as I do, just upgrading software along the way, that's a fairly moot issue.
Since I only use my Mac in my home (an antiquated but perfectly sufficient desktop and a more recent laptop), the SWPL-value of gaining positive reinforcement from having others seeing me use my value-signaling brand is pretty small.
My own favorite "we're rebelling against conformity!" group that has its own set of rigid conformity rules is the Goths.
I prefer PCs. I know how to navigate it better. It's mostly little things such as copying and pasting. I have a hard time using a Mac computer so I generally try to avoid it since it gets on my nerves.
BTW 1, is it just a coincidence that you post this the week Apple's market value surpassed Microsoft's?
Yea. I've had it in my "Drafts" for awhile now.
I like the stability, freedom from viruses, and the overall aesthetic.
They definitely look nicer, but I've never had a problem with the other two.
As for the inertia argument: when I was around 10, we start using computers in school and at home, we had an ancient PC (don't remember which brand). I used the computer in school way more and it was a Mac. At that time, I actually thought Macs were better (easier) and tried to convince my parents to get a Mac. I didn't use a Mac for years after and now I can't ever see switching to one.
So the decision probably has a lot to do with your first computer and what you originally got comfortable on.
The OSX unix environment is a bad joke. Cygwin destroys Macports. What most people think of when they think of the OSX Unix env is actually the Terminal app. It takes 5 minutes to install MinTTY in Windows, so this isn't much of an argument.
I use both PCs and Macs, but on PCs only Linux.
Macs are overpriced, and tragically hip, and now not very high quality for the price (laptops don't last any longer than cheap Toshibas because they're made from the same cheap Chinese Parts).
The difference is the SOFTWARE.
Writing software for the Mac is outstanding. Nisus Writer, Mellel, Avenir, Mariner Write, along with Final Draft make it the writer's OS of choice.
On Linux, you only get Abiword, Open Office, and Textmaker (paid from Softmaker, a German firm).
PCs use a lot of cycles for anti-virus stuff, you don't get free updates for OS's, and there's not tons of free software like for Linux (and Macs using Macports or Fink).
Of course, some folks use pirate installs of Mac OSX (the OSX86 Project has details). It works sort of well, given the commonality of hardware these days.
Macs crash less often. Have good support for video editing and such. Commercial software tends to be top-rate and mostly affordable (under $100). Text-code editors like Textmaker beat the hell out Scite. Nisus Writer has complex regular expressions built in, search for say three carriage returns in a row.
Apple's desktop machines, particularly the top end ones, tend to hold value far better than the the laptops.
That being said, with the installation of a few codecs in Ubuntu, fairly easy off the How-To in UbuntuForums, I can play mp3s and aacs by just mousing over them in Gnome, and configured Gnome to look/act mostly like a Mac. Meanwhile the interface, a bottom "tray" type Windows OS bit and top menu ala Apple, are pretty cool and take the best from both.
I have two PCs at home. I like to build my own, so Mac is out of the question. I buy components that are non-cutting edge, and then I can upgrade to the latest non-cutting edge as needed.
I use both extensively -- PC at work, Mac at home. I do a lot of home video editing, and the Mac output is just more attractive.
Apple is like Disney, PCs are like every other amusement park out there. When you're at one of the latter, there's no question you're having a good time. But when you go back to a Disney park, the meticulous attention to the aesthetics gives you a warm fuzzy feeling you just don't get anywhere else.
So yes, Apple is all about feelings. But when you're producing a DVD for Grandpa and Grandma comprising warm fuzzy videos of warm fuzzy grandkids, it's worth paying for that feeling.
I need to use a PC because I'm a computer programmer and I use them at work. However for anyone who isn't in that position -- a group which includes all the members of my immediate family -- I recommend a Mac. It's partly because I think they are better designed and more usable, but I recognize that that's debatable.
The big reason for using a Mac is this: NO MALWARE! No viruses. No drive-by hijacking of your computer just because you clicked on the wrong link. The standard explanation for this is that the Mac was just too unpopular a platform to interest the malware writers, but I never believed that, and as the Mac becomes more and more popular that argument is looking weaker and weaker. I think the truth is that Windows is just incredibly badly designed from the point of view of security, and that despite all of Microsoft's more recent efforts the probably is basically unfixable. My 85 year old mother is still smart enough not to give her bank numbers to spammers, but there is no way I could ever get her to the point where she was sophisticated enough to recognize and avoid clicking on every malicious link that came her way. But with a Mac I don't have to, because it doesn't matter.
My 85 year old mother is still smart enough not to give her bank numbers to spammers
Good thing I've never fallen for this, though I have given my bank account number out over the internet. But don't worry, it was to a Nigerian orphan who had a scholarship to study in the US and he said he would pay me back.
Mac. I have never gotten PCs to work reliably in any environment -
home, business, or school,
1980s, 1990s, or 21st Century,
operating proprietary or off-the-shelf software,
doing simple or complex things.
PCs do not know if they are hooked up to printers.
How can a computer not know if it is hooked up to a printer? If Microsoft can sell a computer that doesn't know if it is hooked up to a printer, why doesn't it save some cash by selling a computer that doesn't know if it has a keyboard? Or a monitor?
Yes, I'm computer illiterate, and yes I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, but I have seen hundreds of man-hours wasted by (allegedly) profit-making companies asking dozens of employees "have you tried rebooting?" as a solution to all computer problems (usually right after the employees have explained that rebooting doesn't help).
The fish rots from the head down. Is the head the computer, or the management? I don't know; the analogy doesn't say.
(And there's no need to hurt a guy with this "hip" talk. If anyone thinks that because I am a Mac user, I am hip ... I shall soak my plaid pants in tears of unmitigated sorrow.)
Whiskey's comment that it's about software - But he draws the wrong conclusions. Though it wouldn't be the first time a mac user was deliberately obtuse -
I wrote my first script on Final Draft (for Windows). If you're on Windows you have access to dramatically more software than either Mac or Linux, and a lot of it of higher quality (a lot of lower quality too, but presumably you'll do some research).
I used macs for about 15 years and then made the switch to Windows when I wanted to get into a field that required use of a program with no available Mac or *nix option. Turns out most of the prejudices I had about Windows machines being harder to use, more crash prone, etc were unfounded. I actually think Windows is easier to use (its windows management is infinitely superior to macs', on whom I find myself constantly wasting time due to the inefficiency of the pretty-but-useless Dock over the no-frills-but-useful taskbar).
The Software for Windows is abysmal, if you focus on the Operating System and MS Office.
This is because Microsoft's model is to bring in tons of H1-Bs, and outsource a lot of stuff to India and China and Vietnam. The Redmond campus is notorious for being basically, a small city. Windows has thousands of programmers working on it, most dirt-cheap H1-Bs.
As anyone who has developed or managed software development knows, this is terrible. Throwing people at software projects does not scale. The only decent Office suite in recent memory was Mac Office 2004, made by a small, tight team at MS that was left alone.
Mac software is done by a small team, from OS to third party software development outside Apple. Most of the Mac Software is superior to anything equivalent on Windows, particularly remote Text Editors, and Word Processing and Writing Software.
Linux, which I'm writing on right now, has the typical Open Source model, which has a few talented leaders allowing a few talented volunteers looking to make their bones. In addition, Sun-Oracle, and IBM have thrown programmers at Open Office to stick it to MS, and offer anti-MS solutions. Open Source offers the "many eyes" solution to finding/fixing bugs, though typically it lacks interface niceness.
Windows suffers from legacy issues that empower malware, and a bad design that allows shortcuts right to memory. The UNIX design behind Linux and Mac OSX is not bullet proof, but is about 40 years old for the most part, well debugged, and inherently more secure. The code for UNIX is designed and put together by highly paid/trained professionals from Bell Labs, UC Berkeley, and then polished and ported by other talented folks. Rather than a first year graduate from an Indian tech school paid dirt cheap.
Linux and Mac viruses and malware exist, but are far less dangerous because of the OS design.
On a Windows Machine, basically anything less than 2 GB of RAM is going to suck. On Linux, using a more RAM friendly interface, you can do multi-tasking productive work with say, XFCE and Ubuntu, or Fedora, or Open Suse, or Mint, or what have you distro. Many you can try from "Live CDs" to see how they work and detect hardware.
My biggest beef is that Linux has Open Office Writer ... and Abiword. The latter lacking scripting, RegEx Search/Replace, and auto-text insertion. Which is a key for many writers doing long/complex documents. So its really just Open Office Writer.
Meanwhile, Nisus Writer kicks MS Office and Open Office Writer butt. Sigh.
I'm a photographer, and it's my sense that Photoshop and similar software just runs better on the Mac. Could be it's just what I'm used to, and it could be that the Windows machines I've seen with Photoshop just aren't great, hardware-wise.
But for what I need, the Mac seems to work better.
Also I buy a new computer every three years or so. With the extended warranty, a Mac is under warranty for most of its useful life. If it breaks, there's no silly back-and-forth about hardware v. software. You just take it to the Apple Store and it gets fixed.
There is some variation within PC companies however. I have been much happier with my Thinkpad than friends have been with their laptop PCs.
I think to settle this debate about whether PC or Mac is cool, we should all that modern computers suck. I remember when I was in elementry school how awesome a lot of the computers of the early to mid nineties. My family had bought an Apple that lasted for ten years with no problems.
The same goes for the PCs that my family owned during the nineties. Now it seems that every computer, mind my french, is a piece shit. When I was in fourth grade, all my family and friends loved Windows 95 when it came out. Now those same people can not stop bitching about Windows 7, Vista, and Windows XP being horrible pieces of shit software.
The same can be said of Video Games. The Playstation, Nintendo 64, Sega Genesis, Super Nintendo, The Nintendo Entertaiment System, and even Sega Saturn were all bad ass video game systems that did not break on you when played them for hours on end. Now I have friends scream to me about how XBOX 360 is a piece of crap. The Wii is a boring gimmenick. Only people who have PS3s have not complained to me about how much their game system sucks.
The only technology that came out the last decade that people have not bitched about hours on end to me is the IPOD. People actually like that device, even though smart people usually by a cheap MP3 player than an IPOD. So I guess would have to give it to Apple. Even though the IMacs generally suck now.
I remember the days when Apple would make computers largely used by only graphic designers and hippies like my family. Many Swipples love Apple for the mystic they had in the nineties as an underdog company for hippies. I was one of the only people in my group of friends until my later teens that had an Apple computer in his house. I use to remember in the nineties when people would talk about the extinction of Apple as a computer company. Apple was cool when truly nobody else liked them. The pre-IMAC apple computers were so bad ass. Even though few people bought Macintoshs in the nineties, most people who owned one thought they were great machines. Most of course were middle class liberals who had art degrees, basically hippies and not swipples. It is funny how Steve Jobs was consider an absolute joke in the nineties. People would talk about how IBM, HP, COMPAC, and even Windows were going to buy them out. Now all my Swipple friends worship Apple even though they own PCs. However all the Hippies have moved on to PCs.
PS: There is a difference between Hippies and Swipples.
I used PCs until about 2005. Since then, I've very much preferred Macs. They don't crash as often and I like some of the software programs like Pages and Garage band.
MACs are for the wealthy beaugois.
i rock a macbook
mad porn, no viruses. sup?
Linux. Because it's doesn't adhere to the standards of one man or one company. It's open, it's free, you can do whatever you want, and it's secure. That, coupled with the fact that I don't run with the popular opinion on most things, it fits my lifestyle the best.
Post a Comment