Leopard Receives Unix Certification

[Dwight F]

Sure there are some optimizing issues ( see www.barefeats.com/doom3.html for comments from the company that did the port ) but it is interesting that the compiler itself was a considerable part of the CPU speed issues. Of course, regardless of the sources of lack of speed, it actually speaks towards a sizable upside of Macs running Intel CPUs.

 

P.S. Of course my two main points were that: a) bixit didn't do a simple search for the minimum requirements for Doom3, maybe because he didn't realize how old the game is? the game isn't particularly CPU bound which is typical of most video games (with few exceptions)

[pyrates]

You don't know as much about Macs as you think you do, so STFU.

 

Oh I'm gonna remember that quote for a long time.

 

A Universal Binary application contains both PPC and Intel code (it does not use Rosetta). Same application runs at native (non-emulated, non-Rosetta) speed on both PPC and Intel platforms.

 

Yes they do, that is not in dispute.

 

And in many cases, a G4 of the same clock speed as a P4 is faster.

 

Why does this matter if the fastest intel cpu can beat the fastest ppc cpu?

 

One reason is Mac OS X manages memory and prefetching better than any other OS I know of. My 1.4GHz G4 PowerMac can run Doom 3 - show me any Intel cpu prior to the Core architecture that can do that @ 1.4GHz. I use both Intel and PPC Macs, and they're both fast.

 

Now you're grasping at straws here. Again, why should it matter? I'd like to know why you are telling us this. Why did Apple switch? Because intel was beating them and their PPC cpu couldn't keep up. So what does you telling us this change anything?

 

The best thing, to me, about Apple's Intel switch is that I can now build my own "white box" Mac for 1/2 the price or less. Woot on that for awhile.

 

Just goes to show ya that's a market that Apple is missing and should take advantage of. And the Mac Mini doesn't count here because you can't have a decent video card in it, nor can you have one with a core 2 quad cpu and 4 gb of ram. Form factor does limit things no matter what if you lean more towards it then performance.

[bixit]

Oh I'm gonna remember that quote for a long time.

 

Enjoy!

 

Now you're grasping at straws here. Again, why should it matter? I'd like to know why you are telling us this.

 

I am here to tell you all that you need to know. Listen up or ignore down... The tree has fallen.

[powderblue]

There is so much garbage being spread in this thread by people who don't know jack about what they're talking about. First of all the reason Apple switched to Intel chips is because they make laptops and when you make laptops you need really cool running chips. Intel makes cool running chips for laptops with the Pentium M first and then the next generation Pentium M called the Core Duo. IBM did not make cool running chips for use in a laptop and while the G3 and G4 were cool running chips they were clearly being left behind by x86 processors. Now onto desktops, the G5 chips were very fast chips and they kept their own with Intel and AMD chips. They were better at some benchmarks while x86 were better at other benchmarks. Again the main reason for the switch was because of laptops and not because x86 was blowing PPC out of the water. If you don't believe me look at the XBox 360. That has a PPC chip in it and also has at least a 30% failure rate because it runs too hot. Also I'd like to point out that the Megahertz Myth is true and if you don't believe me all you have to do is look at Intel for proof. The Pentium D which is Intel dual core chip based on the Pentium 4 architecture got up to around 3.0 gigahertz but even a 2.0 gigahertz Core 2 Duo chip blows the Pentium D out of the water when it comes to speed. So the megahertz myth is true and Intel proves it. The PPC is a good chip or else Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo wouldn't be using them in their consoles but the resources were never put towards it like what Intel does to x86 for general use. Apple wants to make thin laptops and silent desktops so they really had no choice but to switch. I wish you people knew what you were talking about before you go spreading this garbage as the truth.

[Gooly]

Gud news!!!

[A Nonny Moose]

There is so much garbage being spread in this thread by people who don't know jack about what they're talking about. First of all the reason Apple switched to Intel chips is because they make laptops and when you make laptops you need really cool running chips. Intel makes cool running chips for laptops with the Pentium M first and then the next generation Pentium M called the Core Duo. IBM did not make cool running chips for use in a laptop and while the G3 and G4 were cool running chips they were clearly being left behind by x86 processors. Now onto desktops, the G5 chips were very fast chips and they kept their own with Intel and AMD chips. They were better at some benchmarks while x86 were better at other benchmarks. Again the main reason for the switch was because of laptops and not because x86 was blowing PPC out of the water. If you don't believe me look at the XBox 360. That has a PPC chip in it and also has at least a 30% failure rate because it runs too hot. Also I'd like to point out that the Megahertz Myth is true and if you don't believe me all you have to do is look at Intel for proof. The Pentium D which is Intel dual core chip based on the Pentium 4 architecture got up to around 3.0 gigahertz but even a 2.0 gigahertz Core 2 Duo chip blows the Pentium D out of the water when it comes to speed. So the megahertz myth is true and Intel proves it. The PPC is a good chip or else Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo wouldn't be using them in their consoles but the resources were never put towards it like what Intel does to x86 for general use. Apple wants to make thin laptops and silent desktops so they really had no choice but to switch. I wish you people knew what you were talking about before you go spreading this garbage as the truth.

 

Which was exactly what I said earlier and led to a pissing contest.

[pyrates]

I am here to tell you all that you need to know. Listen up or ignore down... The tree has fallen.

Very well said, thank you for avoiding my question and not answering it. All that shows is that you had no reason to tell us this other then to attempt to defend Apple's previous decision to stick with the PPC cpu. Ignorance is bliss.

 

There is so much garbage being spread in this thread by people who don't know jack about what they're talking about. First of all the reason Apple switched to Intel chips is because they make laptops and when you make laptops you need really cool running chips. Intel makes cool running chips for laptops with the Pentium M first and then the next generation Pentium M called the Core Duo. IBM did not make cool running chips for use in a laptop and while the G3 and G4 were cool running chips they were clearly being left behind by x86 processors. Now onto desktops, the G5 chips were very fast chips and they kept their own with Intel and AMD chips. They were better at some benchmarks while x86 were better at other benchmarks. Again the main reason for the switch was because of laptops and not because x86 was blowing PPC out of the water. If you don't believe me look at the XBox 360. That has a PPC chip in it and also has at least a 30% failure rate because it runs too hot. Also I'd like to point out that the Megahertz Myth is true and if you don't believe me all you have to do is look at Intel for proof. The Pentium D which is Intel dual core chip based on the Pentium 4 architecture got up to around 3.0 gigahertz but even a 2.0 gigahertz Core 2 Duo chip blows the Pentium D out of the water when it comes to speed. So the megahertz myth is true and Intel proves it. The PPC is a good chip or else Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo wouldn't be using them in their consoles but the resources were never put towards it like what Intel does to x86 for general use. Apple wants to make thin laptops and silent desktops so they really had no choice but to switch. I wish you people knew what you were talking about before you go spreading this garbage as the truth.

Excellent post I must say. It certainly makes sense to me. I know I had to educate people about the MHz myth who were looking at buying a pc back in the p4 days to get amd instead since they offered more bang for the buck.

 

I think the XBox 360 issue is that it's not that 30% of them will fail, Microsoft has admitted that everyone of them sold so far will eventually fail. Probably of course due to heat. But as the making of the cpu for it goes to a smaller nm design, then heat will be decreased and eventually we'll have a cooler xbox 360 that isn't prone to failure.

 

But the number of sony ps3 failures number only around 1%, course that might have something to do with its small market share currently for the ps3.

[bluedragon1971]

A Universal Binary application contains both PPC and Intel code (it does not use Rosetta). Same application runs at native (non-emulated, non-Rosetta) speed on both PPC and Intel platforms.

 

Yes they do, that is not in dispute.

 

Huh? How is it not in dispute? You said exactly the opposite in the message he quoted. Let me refresh your memory:

This universal binary, which uses rosetta, only works for PPC apps ran on an intel based pc. Not the other way. So they aren't switching unless it's another 10 years from now. And if you look at the latest software programs for intel mac's, they are NOT universal binaries. Atleast the big ones aren't like Adobe Photoshop CS3.

 

 

You specifically stated that Universal Binaries use Rosetta (they don't). Rosetta is ONLY for running PPC apps (such as Microsoft Office 2004) on Intel. A Universal app contains both types of code, so if Apple were to begin releasing PPC computers again in the future, Universal apps would work equally well on them. And Adobe Photoshop CS3 is a Universal app. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Suite_3

The latest version, Adobe Creative Suite 3 (CS3), was announced on March 27, 2007; it introduced Universal binaries for all programs for the Apple Macintosh.

 

Perhaps you should read up on exactly what a Universal binary is before you go making claims that others around here know to be wrong.

[Achilleus]

This was a great thread to read! I knew hardly anything of Apple's chip or OS history. It seems that every decision made by Apple has been second guessed time and time again, but why? Apple makes one or two mistakes, you see threads like this. Microsoft makes many mistakes and nobody argues about it. Perhaps because Apple is supposed to be absolutely perfect when compared to other companies(such as microsoft)?

 

For instance, lets take the supposed "lie" when Apple made the switch to Intel. I do remember reading about this when it happened. It was not a lie, it was a comfort. Apple is practically one of Steve Job's children, and as such he probably just wanted to make all of the die hard apple users(who are NOT all tech savvy like people here) feel better about it. Believe it or not, there are other users out there--apple users--who don't even know what PPC is. They just use their Apple because that's what they grew up with, and their kids use Apple. Or they are the kids that are growing up with an Apple. Or, they switched to Apple because they heard it was more secure/easier to use or w/e. Maybe a salesperson flagged them down and convinced them utterly that Apple is way better then winblows.

 

Not only that, but OS X is designed to be intuitive and user friendly. Don't you think that just maybe, somebody ELSE exists in the world that uses this software because of this fact? Because they like how their apple does everything they want, comes with all sorts of great software, is backed by a company with GREAT support and customer care, and is the easiest to use out of all the other operating systems?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fat chance huh. Crazy talk isn't it.

 

 

 

 

 

I have enjoyed this thread, but I gotta say the whole lie thing has pissed me off since the first moment it was brought up. Don't ever question a man's character over something stupid like that. If you ever did that to anybody around here where I live you'd find your life a very hard existence.

[bluedragon1971]

But the number of sony ps3 failures number only around 1%, course that might have something to do with its small market share currently for the ps3.

 

How do you figure that market share has any correlation to failure rates? The failure rate is a percentage of all of the units of a given console that were sold. I've seen people use the same ridiculous argument for why Apple's failure rate on their systems is so much lower than Dell's. It doesn't make any sense in that case either.

[Colonel Ingus]

Perhaps because Apple is supposed to be absolutely perfect when compared to other companies(such as microsoft)?

That's exactly the reason why. It happens every-time something, or someone, is associated with greatness or a high level of perfection. For example; a rock group comes out with thier first album and it is incredible. They become famous. Their second album is equally great, and people can't wait until their next (3rd) album comes out, only this one is just so-so (at least by their first two album standards) and so everyone criticizes them. Fleetwood Mac is an good example. The same thing happens with movies, and even movie stars. You come to expect a certain level of greatness from the companies/people and when they do something that is considered normal, or even if they make a mistake, it suddenly finds its way under a microscope. Apple is associated with being innovative and thinking outside of the box. People (especially windows fanboys) tend to scrutinize every little thing that Apple does. All you can do is just consider the source and move on. Apple is not perfect. No company is, basically because humans are involved, and humans tend to make mistakes from time to time. Unlike Microsoft however, Apple seems to learn from their mistakes which is all you can really ask of them, or anyone else for that matter

[THEHAWKs]

apple has a very innovated way of thinking apart from other companies they always seem to uphold the idea that there the best at what they do and bring a product that is viewed as almost perfect apple always in my eyes went for hardware that took them to the next level but now there not so different anymore there hardware is to transparent someone can now go out and buy non-apple hardware and run there OS as good as there own apple hardware i think there next level for them or the next step would be again to separate them selves and that why i like the idea of a Cell CPU i think the only reason they adopted the Intel CPU was because Intel could meet there standards and again taking them to a place they have never bin ......and we all have seen the OS run on a cell cpu and remember there a company that has a big following on a Media standpoint and since the CELL does a very good job at that this would be a no brainier to take that route

[Achilleus]

apple has a very innovated way of thinking apart from other companies they always seem to uphold the idea that there the best at what they do and bring a product that is viewed as almost perfect apple always in my eyes went for hardware that took them to the next level but now there not so different anymore there hardware is to transparent someone can now go out and buy non-apple hardware and run there OS as good as there own apple hardware i think there next level for them or the next step would be again to separate them selves and that why i like the idea of a Cell CPU i think the only reason they adopted the Intel CPU was because Intel could meet there standards and again taking them to a place they have never bin ......and we all have seen the OS run on a cell cpu and remember there a company that has a big following on a Media standpoint and since the CELL does a very good job at that this would be a no brainier to take that route

 

 

,..,'';',..,

 

Have some punctuation. This one's on the house

[pyrates]

You specifically stated that Universal Binaries use Rosetta (they don't). Rosetta is ONLY for running PPC apps (such as Microsoft Office 2004) on Intel. A Universal app contains both types of code, so if Apple were to begin releasing PPC computers again in the future, Universal apps would work equally well on them. And Adobe Photoshop CS3 is a Universal app. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Suite_3

 

Thank you for the correction. Obviously I didn't read what I put thoroughly enough before I hit submit.

[pyrates]

That's exactly the reason why. It happens every-time something, or someone, is associated with greatness or a high level of perfection. For example; a rock group comes out with thier first album and it is incredible. They become famous. Their second album is equally great, and people can't wait until their next (3rd) album comes out, only this one is just so-so (at least by their first two album standards) and so everyone criticizes them. Fleetwood Mac is an good example. The same thing happens with movies, and even movie stars. You come to expect a certain level of greatness from the companies/people and when they do something that is considered normal, or even if they make a mistake, it suddenly finds its way under a microscope. Apple is associated with being innovative and thinking outside of the box. People (especially windows fanboys) tend to scrutinize every little thing that Apple does. All you can do is just consider the source and move on. Apple is not perfect. No company is, basically because humans are involved, and humans tend to make mistakes from time to time. Unlike Microsoft however, Apple seems to learn from their mistakes which is all you can really ask of them, or anyone else for that matter

 

It wouldn't be nearly as bad if some of the fan boys didn't go as far as they do to defend Apple when clearly Apple was in the wrong for particularly situations.

 

Such as the beta of Safari 3 for windows which Apple claimed was built from the ground up with security in mind and it turned out that it suffered from common security holes that were found also to occur in the final version of Safari 2 for OS X. This was found only hours after its release. Now it wouldn't have nearly gotten as much attention if Apple marketing hadn't gotten in their and claimed it was built from the ground up with security in mind, which Steve Jobs then reiterated with his keynote that day as well. People said it was a beta and to expect these kind of things, in trying to defend it.

 

Here's another. The infamous $2 fee for getting a more up to date driver that is capable of 802.11n when if you had used boot camp and installed windows, you already had that capability for free. Instead Apple chose to charge for it. Except of course if you decided to purchase an apple airport extreme, then they included it for free. Despite that most windows users would expect something like this for free. And the defense for it was several things. First was that accounting law, Sarbane Oxely, that said they had to do this. Second was that Apple can do whatever they want, they're a company and that this is not illegal, but that they are allowed to nickel and dime their customers. Final one was that some people didn't mind paying an extra $2 because it is only $2 after all according to those people that took this stance.

 

Let's go with another one. The iphone bug where if you go to a malformed website they can take over your entire phone, make phone calls, have access to your sms messages, have access to your address book, etc. One fan boy in particular said this wasn't as big as people made it out to be. They said that all they need to do is only go to trusted websites, not sign onto public wifi access points, and you'd be safe. But that still doesn't take away the fact that if you go to a malformed website that this can occur, or if you think you're going to a safe site and you're on a public wifi connection that manipulated the dns server and got you to go to their own malformed website instead. It's easy enough to do. Of course Apple patched it. But there was no need to go out defending it saying it's not as bad as you think when it really was.

 

What else do we have. Oh yes the time when during the manufacturer of an ipod a windows virus got on a batch of them. What did Apple do? Well they blamed Microsoft for it. Instead of taking responsibility, they took the blame game. And I even remember when a batch of creative mp3 players shipped out with a windows virus on it, Apple fan boys were quick to point out that this would never happen with Apple. Well of course it did and so they changed their story and agreed with Apple to play the blame game and blame it on Microsoft.

 

There was also that javascript exploit in quicktime that was being used on myspace to be exploited, which some apple fan boys tried to blame entirely on myspace. When the same kind of security hole was discovered in flash and a simple fix was applied. All they had to do was be patient and wait for Apple to fix it, which they did a short time later. But trying to blame it on myspace so that Apple doesn't look bad, that's just stupid.

 

Now the iphone price drop, I loved it. It made me really look at buying one, which I plan to now. But a lot of Apple fan boys were against the company and felt screwed over paying a $200 premium. Now Apple offered a $100 store credit to try to appease them and it worked. This is what happens when you don't always try to defend Apple. You force them to do the right thing.

 

I even see some Apple users getting sick and tired of the fan boys because they make the rest of the apple users look bad. The fan boys are so misinformed and close minded that its virtually impossible to have a civilized conversation with them.

 

This is not my problem with Apple per say, but with its fan boys. When your company has its users who think it's not only their responsibility to buy every Apple product out their, but also to do PR for the company when bad things occur, how can you get any fair judgment for the company and its policies. You can't. If Apple does something bad or something bad is found with Apple, don't try to cover it up. That's not how to fix something.

[Achilleus]

You make an excellent point, pyrates. Props.

[bluedragon1971]

I even see some Apple users getting sick and tired of the fan boys because they make the rest of the apple users look bad. The fan boys are so misinformed and close minded that its virtually impossible to have a civilized conversation with them.

 

The same can be said of fans of pretty much any thing. PS3 fans vs. Xbox360 fans, Ford fans vs. Chevy fans, Democrats vs. Republicans, they all act the same, yet somehow it seems that when the topic turns to Apple, everyone wants to point fingers and call people names.

[Azurael]

look at the XBox 360. That has a PPC chip in it and also has at least a 30% failure rate because it runs too hot.

 

I'm afraid that's false. Firstly, the 3RLOD failures which have become oh-so-common with early 360s are caused by the graphics chip, not the CPU. Secondly, the XBox 360 has a high failure rate mostly because of poor, lead free solder that environmentalist idiots have forced us to use (when all it means is more failed electronic {censored} will end up in landfills, way to score an own goal!) It flows at too low a temperature. This is the exact same reason why several generations of iBook suffered from a high failure rate (the GPUs eventually desoldered themselves from the logic board.) In both of these cases, the chips are running within operating peramaters are themselves fine (how often do you see a 2RLOD [overheat] on a 360? Never, unless you block the fan vents), but no longer properly connected to the PCB. The problem could have been avoided to some extent in the 360 if Microsoft had designed a proper (PC Style) heatsink retention mechanism which doesn't apply pressure in such a way as to bend the board, mind you...

 

It's quite interesting to note that the 360's CPU heatsink is MUCH smaller than anything Apple attached to a G5 and that's because while Xenon's 3 cores (and the SPE of Cell) use the PowerPC instruction set, they are architecturally very different CPUs. They have a much simpler core design, with a small cache, without such luxuries as dynamic scheduler hardware. This means that the workload of optimising code performance goes to the developer, rather than the CPU itself. 360s running Linux show similar performance to a single 1.6GHz G5 despite having 3 3.2GHz CPU cores. While to some extent, this is probably down to GCC not being optimised for producing binaries for the architecture, it gives an insight into quite how useless these architectures are for general purpose computing! This is really an irrelevant rant, but my point is that due to this simplicity, even the 3-core, 3.2GHz 'Xenon' CPU in an XBox 360 dissipates a similar amount (probably less) heat than the average desktop Core 2 Duo chip.

[Colonel Ingus]

,..,'';',..,

 

Have some punctuation. This one's on the house

LOL That's exactly what we were just going to ask. How do these people even graduate from grade school, and not even know how to write a proper sentence? Scary

[Colonel Ingus]

People said it was a beta and to expect these kind of things

It was (is) in beta. These kinds of things are supposed to happen in the beta phase. It's the whole purpose of betas, to find mistakes (usually human made) and to correct them BEFORE the software goes Gold. Once this was brought to Apples attention did they fix it? Yes! Looks like it seems to be proceeding to plan as expected.

 

Of course Apple patched it.

Of course. We'd expect nothing less from them. The only question is how did such a thing slip through before the product was brought to market. I think a big problem with big companies (not just Apple) is that they get so excited about their own products and then some manager somewhere tells them that "everythings got to be ready for sell by a certain date" and then they just throw the product on the store shelves and this kind of thing happens. Products should be thoroughly tested before they hit stores shelves. Managers shouldn't rush product for sale by 'this' or 'that' date.

 

Well they blamed Microsoft for it.

If it was MS fault then so be it, and if it WAS microsoft's fault it would be foolish for Apple not to bring that point to light. The only question is, was it or wasn't it microsofts fault? Our information is that MS was involved with the problem.

 

a lot of Apple fan boys were against the company and felt screwed over paying a $200 premium.

It was their own fault. No one forced them to wait in line. No one told them they HAD to be the first person on the planet with a iPhone. They have no one to blame but themselves for rushing out to buy one. Consider it the price of being any companies fanboy.

 

If Apple does something bad or something bad is found with Apple, don't try to cover it up.

And of course the other side of the coin is those people who try to make mountains out of molehills with Apple, which is I believe is where you would fall Case in point - most of your posts. I don't think anyone here is going to say that Apple is perfect. They aren't. No company is. However, having said that there are people who support Apple because "for the most part" they seem to get most things right. They like the fact that Apple does not follow (like microsoft does). Apple leads - which of course makes them a big target for MS fanboys. Apple is run by humans, not machines, so they will make the occasional mistake. Some people like to magnify these mistakes. Some people like to ignore them. However I think most people here just take them in stride. We know that the bottom line is that there simply isn't isn't a better operating system on the planet! Again, that doesn't mean it's perfect, just the best so far. Go ahead, name one operating system that is better than OS X - certainly nothing that microsoft sells is. Only windows fanboys would be foolish enough to claim that. Everyone knows that you love microsoft and you hate Apple. I'm sure that if a list were to be made of each companies faults that when all was said and done, the list of microsofts faults would be TEN TIMES longer than the Apple list. The point is, until microsoft is a better company than Apple, your whining will fall on deaf ears, and rightly so

[Achilleus]

LOL That's exactly what we were just going to ask. How do these people even graduate from grade school, and not even know how to write a proper sentence? Scary

 

 

The answer is simple: They are true stereotypical Americans.

[Soündless]

no, tehy r lzy! lololol! i never write rite!

[Colonel Ingus]

They are true stereotypical Americans.

Verses what, 5.1 surround sound Americans?

[pyrates]

It was (is) in beta. These kinds of things are supposed to happen in the beta phase. It's the whole purpose of betas, to find mistakes (usually human made) and to correct them BEFORE the software goes Gold. Once this was brought to Apples attention did they fix it? Yes! Looks like it seems to be proceeding to plan as expected.

 

Of course they're supposed to happen in the beta phase. But you don't include marketing material in the beta phase that says it was built from the ground up with security in mind, and then something like that was discovered. It just makes you look stupid. But marketing had to get in their and make a fool of Apple when these flaws were discovered hours within its release. And the security researchers said these were common tests that they did. Remember when the CEO of Oracle said that their database server software was unbreakable years ago?

 

Of course. We'd expect nothing less from them. The only question is how did such a thing slip through before the product was brought to market. I think a big problem with big companies (not just Apple) is that they get so excited about their own products and then some manager somewhere tells them that "everythings got to be ready for sell by a certain date" and then they just throw the product on the store shelves and this kind of thing happens. Products should be thoroughly tested before they hit stores shelves. Managers shouldn't rush product for sale by 'this' or 'that' date.

 

I completely agree. And when any company does that I call them out on it, not just cause it's Apple. But we all know nothing is perfect. So this is expected to be found, especially when it's part of such a popular product.

 

If it was MS fault then so be it, and if it WAS microsoft's fault it would be foolish for Apple not to bring that point to light. The only question is, was it or wasn't it microsofts fault? Our information is that MS was involved with the problem.

 

Exactly how is it Microsoft's fault? It was a well known virus that all antivirus vendors could detect. Their is a certain amount of responsibility that Microsoft can only take so far. See here. But here is what was so bad about it:

 

"As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves, for not catching it," Apple told video iPod customers on its Website. The company assured customers all video iPods are now shipping free of the virus.

 

And here is another important fact:

 

Microsoft, however, said the virus does not appear to take advantage of a Windows vulnerability.

 

So why defend Apple when they were clearly playing the blame game instead of taking responsibility for it?

 

It was their own fault. No one forced them to wait in line. No one told them they HAD to be the first person on the planet with a iPhone. They have no one to blame but themselves for rushing out to buy one. Consider it the price of being any companies fanboy.

 

Always. That is why I never buy a new product when it first comes out. I always wait for the price to drop. And now that it is, I plan to get an iphone soon enough. Just without the at&t lock in that is.

 

And of course the other side of the coin is those people who try to make mountains out of molehills with Apple, which is I believe is where you would fall Case in point - most of your posts. I don't think anyone here is going to say that Apple is perfect. They aren't. No company is. However, having said that there are people who support Apple because "for the most part" they seem to get most things right. They like the fact that Apple does not follow (like microsoft does). Apple leads - which of course makes them a big target for MS fanboys. Apple is run by humans, not machines, so they will make the occasional mistake. Some people like to magnify these mistakes. Some people like to ignore them. However I think most people here just take them in stride. We know that the bottom line is that there simply isn't isn't a better operating system on the planet! Again, that doesn't mean it's perfect, just the best so far. Go ahead, name one operating system that is better than OS X - certainly nothing that microsoft sells is. Only windows fanboys would be foolish enough to claim that. Everyone knows that you love microsoft and you hate Apple. I'm sure that if a list were to be made of each companies faults that when all was said and done, the list of microsofts faults would be TEN TIMES longer than the Apple list. The point is, until microsoft is a better company than Apple, your whining will fall on deaf ears, and rightly so

 

Again, all I'm trying to say is that Apple is more of a target because of it's fan boys that continue to try to defend them when they appear to do a wrong move as if Apple is perfect. This is the image that its fan boys project Apple to be.

 

And I don't hate Apple, I just dislike some of their products, thats all. Just like I don't like everything Microsoft does. When they do something I don't like, I will call them on it. Will you do the same with Apple? I don't have a zune, I have an iriver with a built in fm tuner. I don't have an xbox 360. I run linux on servers when I can. I just want a computer that I can play games on, watch 1080p movies, listen to my music, chat on the internet, etc. So far I haven't seen a h.264 codec that is smp aware that can use high profile up to level 5.1 and not available for any OS out their besides windows. And a PC does all that. So PC's fit me quite well. Mac's may fit you, but they don't fit me. They just have far too many limitations for my taste. Plus I'm impatient and don't want to have to wait for Apple to release the computer that I want, and not be allowed to build it myself.

[A Nonny Moose]

Few points:

 

1. We expect Apple to be perfect because...Apple expects itself to be perfect. Apple expects to have top notch critters in the market and we expect a certain quality from Apple. When the quality is off, the fanboys are never the first to react. It's the MICROSOFT fanboys screaming "ZOMG, APPLE ISN'T PERFECT, GO MS!!!!" Then the pissing contest starts. Now to be fair, there isn't nearly as much of a god complex at Microsoft, since we all yawn at MS security threats as if they happen every five minutes (and they do too, lol).

 

2. The Safari beta shouldn't have been advertised as nothing more than a beta. Apple clearly screwed up.

 

3. The 802.11n enabler is a non-topic. Anyone could have made a free enabler. The gods of InsanelyMac could have made one and released it the moment we all realized this was possible. Guess what--IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. NOBODY RELEASED A DRIVER even though it was possible. They just patiently waited for Apple and then whined because Apple charged them for it.

 

4. The viruses on the iPod wasn't Apple's fault, nor was it Microsoft's. It was the fault of the labor workers earning 1¢ per day. Those same labor workers that flooded toys with lead.

 

5. iPhone pricing--welcome to being iivx-ed. Cry about it some more, as nobody forced you to wait in line and nobody forced you to pay for it to begin with. Nobody shoved a gun down your throat and screamed "Buy this or die." There are tons of other phones and tons of other MP3 players and tons of phones that play MP3's

 

Now let's let this topic die in peace.