Denial

Microsoft often gets accused of stealing all ideas from Apple. But how original is the current Mac really? The Macintosh went from a 68k system, to PowerPC and then they finally realized that the standard Intel based PC was a much better system, so they just scrapped their whole system and built a “standard PC

Apple are no way near original in ideas but their execution of other peoples' is where their talent lie. Solid and robust - that's how I think of Apple products. Windows on the other hand...

Apple (corporately) and Steve Jobs (personally) long ago admit (in court, no less) that the inspiration for the Mac's GUI came from a trip that some Apple people took to Xerox's (formerly) Palo Alto Research Center where they saw a demonstration of the Alto. That isn't news. I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of the inaccuracies in your post because you long ago made it clear that you choose to believe things irrespective of facts.

Boray wrote:I'm not saying the Mac is a bad computer, just not as original as they claim to be.

Really? Where does Apple make that claim?

gklinger wrote:Apple (corporately) and Steve Jobs (personally) long ago admit (in court, no less) that the inspiration for the Mac's GUI came from a trip that some Apple people took to Xerox's (formerly) Palo Alto Research Center where they saw a demonstration of the Alto. That isn't news. I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of the inaccuracies in your post because you long ago made it clear that you choose to believe things irrespective of facts.

Boray wrote:I'm not saying the Mac is a bad computer, just not as original as they claim to be.

Really? Where does Apple make that claim?

If they accuse others of stealing their ideas, wouldn't that mean that they claim that the ideas are theirs to begin with?

In case anyone wonder why I posted this; Some Mac guy wrote a bunch of garbage on a Vista forum. I decided to post my answer here too... Maybe that was a bad idea...

gklinger wrote:I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of the inaccuracies in your post because you long ago made it clear that you choose to believe things irrespective of facts.

You are not going to address the rest of the inaccuracies? So... hmmm... Which inaccuracy DID you address?

http://dailydeceit.com/imitators-dilemma

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/top- ... indows-966

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/top-10-f ... c-os-x-971

Boray wrote:Some Mac guy wrote a bunch of garbage on a Vista forum.

And in response you posted a bunch of garbage on a VIC-20 forum where the person you're supposedly responding to can't see it.

*plonk*

gklinger wrote:

Boray wrote:Some Mac guy wrote a bunch of garbage on a Vista forum.

And in response you posted a bunch of garbage on a VIC-20 forum where the person you're supposedly responding to can't see it.

*plonk*

He can see what I wrote to him. And he turned out to be a lot nicer than you.

Back with a video after some PMs exchanged with Golan...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/apple-vs-microsoft.html

"Without warning, Apple filed suit against Microsoft in federal court on March 17, 1988 for violating Apple's copyrights on the "visual displays" of the Macintosh."

"The lawsuit was decided in Microsoft's favor on August 24, 1993."

Many things I didn't like about Apple, which include:
-They cannibalized the Apple line of computers in favour of the Macintosh line. There was no reason the two platforms could not have co-existed except for Steve Job's ego. The IIGS was a remarkable machine in contrast to the Macintosh.
-All through the 90's, they were bashing DOS and Windows for crashing, yet their Mac couldn't even multitask properly. Windows 3.1 and DOS weren't the best, but at least that combination could truly multitask. That, and the Macs still crashed (but with a cute picture of a bomb whenever they did).
-They use misconceptions and outright lies in their advertising campaign, which I find often insults my intelligence.
-They never recognize the fact that the PC industry is much more than Windows. I was an OS/2 man back in the mid 90's, which could multitask and was extremely stable.

I think the worst part about it is the arrogance of the Mac fanboys constantly repeating lies. Even if it was a better computer system, that alone turns me off of it.

PaulQ wrote:the Macs still crashed (but with a cute picture of a bomb whenever they did).

I don't believe this is correct. Didn't the Mac crash with a picture of the Mac with an unhappy face? Because the Atari ST line crashed with bombs across the screen, later revisions crashed with mushroom clouds.

The biggest issue I have with Apple and its Macintosh are the "benchmarks" they liked to run in the 1990's, in a time where the PC world was in a crazy Megahertz hunt. Obviously PowerPC is clocked at lower frequencies than your average Pentium, but it got absurd at the point when Apple insisted a G4 is at least 50% more effective at the same clock frequency than a Pentium 4 was, and of course also cost at least 50% more.

As a basis for their benchmarks, they ran a particular filter in Adobe Photoshop, supposedly tuned to perfection on the Macintosh. Never mind users may find other uses of their computer than to apply certain filters onto images. If they had backed it up with a whole Sandra or other benchmark suite, I would have given them more credibility.

Nowadays when Macintosh runs on Intel X86, they really can't claim to use a more powerful CPU than the competitors' PCs, since a Dual-Core is a Dual-Core no matter which operating system you load onto it.

Quad-Core.. I did just look iMac 27" yeasterday..