Bill Gates vs. Apple: "You lying liars!"

EggyToast

Believe me, you switch because of the software/hardware awesomeness, but you stay for the pretentious attitude.

ihd

Tobasco wrote:

fireside wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

fireside wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

I don't really care who stole what from who. All I know is that Apple's sorry excuse for a mouse doesn't do it for me. The whole top is the left-click, the right click is on the left side, and the middle click is a clit. Come the fuck on, Jobs.

Don't use it? 99% of all third-party mice work just fine on OS X.

Seriously, it's like complaining I don't want to buy a great pair of shorts because the belt it comes with sucks.

I don't own an Apple computer, but I have to use one for a class. I don't get to choose what kind of mouse I use, and I've already been chewed out by a lab monitor for trying to plug in my laptop's wireless mouse. In retrospect, I seriously doubt a Microsoft-branded mouse would've worked, but it was worth a chance over that abomination of ergonomics Apple makes.

[/bitchbitchbitch]

Yeah well I think that most of the keyboards that are in a public place suck but it wouldn't stop me from getting a PC. Grow up.

mcdermott wrote:

fireside wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

I don't really care who stole what from who. All I know is that Apple's sorry excuse for a mouse doesn't do it for me. The whole top is the left-click, the right click is on the left side, and the middle click is a clit. Come the fuck on, Jobs.

Don't use it? 99% of all third-party mice work just fine on OS X.

Seriously, it's like complaining I don't want to buy a great pair of shorts because the belt it comes with sucks.

Well, in fairness you usually aren't being charged like $50 for the belt. Unless you actually believe that the Mighty Mouse that comes with an iMac or (I imagine) Mac Pro is actually "free."

I mean, I suppose you could sell it on eBay or something to get your money back...but still. Why can't Apple just make a normal damn mouse that matches their hardware? Why must they be so fucking special?

The mighty mouse that comes with apple desktops are free. So is the keyboard.

The problem with PC users and you hate of the Apple mice is that you think a normal mouse has fifteen buttons. A normal mouse for a Mac only needs one button. That's why for so long Apple mice would only have one button. That's all the OS needs.

Not true. Quite a lot of programs require, or at least require to be reasonably functional, more than one mouse button, even for a Mac. In which case, if you have a mouse with only one button, you have to screw around with keyboard shortcuts (ctrl-click or whatever) to do what you need to do. I guess if all you want to do is surf the internet and send pictures to grandma, you can survive with one mouse button. But it is severely limiting to anyone who wants to do more than that.

Especially if you're one of those creative types. It's impossible to use Maya with less than 3 mouse buttons.

bash

Tobasco wrote:

Not true. Quite a lot of programs require, or at least require to be reasonably functional, more than one mouse button, even for a Mac. In which case, if you have a mouse with only one button, you have to screw around with keyboard shortcuts (ctrl-click or whatever) to do what you need to do. I guess if all you want to do is surf the internet and send pictures to grandma, you can survive with one mouse button. But it is severely limiting to anyone who wants to do more than that.

Bullshit. Save for bad Windows/Unix ports there's few if any Mac apps that absolutely require the use of more than one mouse button. Since the default configuration on a Mac is with a single mouse buttons all developers make sure 100% of their application's functionality is accessible with one button. Shortcut keys and context menus can speed up the work of experienced users but they're never required for an application to run properly.

It turns out designing a UI with one button in mind makes you think twice about just tossing shit all over the screen. Mac apps that have deigned to simply toss their shit about willy nilly have either not lasted long or were redesigned quickly. Apps that put two thoughts into the design process from the get-go tended to do better in the market. You'll note that oftentimes when an app is reviewed on a Mac site a shitty interface will be quickly pointed out. The term "not Mac-like" will often be used. Mac users tend to want their applications to behave in a Mac-like manner because the consistancy makes it much easier to not only learn a new program ("Wow it works in a similar fashion to other programs I'm familiar with!") but also makes it easier to move between programs ("The shortcut keys for similar functions in other apps are virtually identical, my existing muscle memory will prove useful!").

bash

The Mac bashing is expected but a little lowball for Gates. Complaints about Vista finally rolling in features that Macs have had for years now are entirely valid. Wow, Vista's got a new compositing windowing engine...that would have been badass in 2002 when Jaguar (10.2) was released. I've been doing full content searching since the Sherlock/MacOS 8 days and good metadata searching since Tiger (10.4) release in 2005. Ohh glossy buttons and large photographic icons, I wonder where I've seen stuff like that before? Microsoft wasn't hax0ring Apple's Gibsons but it's a little far fetched to claim that somehow Apple copied Vista UI elements before Vista was released and that is why there's some UI similarities.

I have no problem with Vista resembling OSX in some ways, it shows Apple was on the right track UI wise. It's not like Microsoft was stealing icons or photocopying layouts. They were designing things with the same goal in mind as Apple, what will be good for users. There's some divergent thinking going on and legacy to support in both camps but I think it is only inevitable that UIs following similar principals will eventually look and behave similarly. Most of the time similarities are just parallel evolution. Organizing photos in a grid layout is going to look pretty similar to any other app organizing photos in a grid layout, it doesn't mean one company ripped the idea off another.

That being said. I think Vista is a bit of a non-starter. A lot of its truly exciting features were dropped a long time ago. It isn't too likely to flop in the classic sense, Microsoft's position in the market guarantees it will eventually run on damn near every new PC sold. However to people that have followed the PC industry for a long time Vista looks very much like a license churn release. Gates doesn't have an elevator pitch for Vista because there really isn't one. It's not like the leap from DOS to Windows 95, it's Windows XP++.

Hamurabi

crash5s wrote:

There are a lot of stupid people out there.

This is a winning attitude.

Seriously. Good job.

natxcross

ZackSchilling wrote:

Avoiding Apple's products out of spite for a perceived corporate attitude is probably the worst excuse I've ever heard for not buying a product, and I'm hearing it over and over here. I suppose you all avoid Sony products for the same reason, right? It's called advertising, folks.

Fuckin Charmin acts like all other toilet papers suck. Oh, so not nothing is as soft as Charmin?! I use my toilet paper all the time and it's pretty soft. Fuck Charmin. I will never buy a Procter and Gamble product ever again because of their ARROGANCE in saying their product is the best.

Advertising is telling people about your product, and why it's good. These Mac ads? There's no actual information there. Also, avoiding someone's products because of their corporate attitude is actually the most morally righteous reason in the world to do so.

In any case, unless some games start coming out on the Mac, I won't even consider buying one. They can make an advert claiming that Macs get you hot chicks and free money, but unless Armed Assault's coming out for it I'm not interested.

Sul

ihd wrote:

Especially if you're one of those creative types. It's impossible to use Maya with less than 3 mouse buttons.

Fuck maya.

Fuck maya and its ASS interface.

the whole reason macsc only have one button is so that shit like maya doesnt happen.

Fuck maya.

[spoiler:83d368d306]i know, i know. i t isnt a great contribution to discussion. but if i really say anything thing, we will get into whether or not "one button" is a good GUI principle. and i KNOW wee don't want to do that.[/spoiler:83d368d306]

ihd

Sul wrote:

ihd wrote:

Especially if you're one of those creative types. It's impossible to use Maya with less than 3 mouse buttons.

Fuck maya.

Fuck maya and its ASS interface.

the whole reason macsc only have one button is so that shit like maya doesnt happen.

Fuck maya.

[spoiler:a1d4d6f46c]i know, i know. i t isnt a great contribution to discussion. but if i really say anything thing, we will get into whether or not "one button" is a good GUI principle. and i KNOW wee don't want to do that.[/spoiler:a1d4d6f46c]

Regardless, it's a crossplatform content creation package that carries real weight in the industry (and I personally don't have any problem with its interface). If Autodesk (nee Alias) say they need three mouse buttons, then so be it.

Hell, I took a Lightwave unit last year and brought my MX500 into the labs with me - and I was able to work much faster than everyone else stuck with one-button doohickeys. Though whether that's an indictment of single-button mice or a statement of my awesomeness is really up for debate.

OT: IIRC Lightwave's camera movement uses keyboard modifiers and a single mouse button compared to Maya's single keyboard key and multiple mouse button approach... but then, Lightwave's not quite as popular - and as an animation student, I try to aim for what potential employers'll be using. Modo has fully-configurable control/interface options and good OS X support, but it's solely a modeller (albeit a very nice modeller)...