Why do PC users hate Apple?

[63dot]

I take it back—Apple-haters don't have issues at all.

Good point, and while the PC haters seem less vocal, it's smart to know both platforms.

The simple thing is to get a Mac and add Windows on it. I don't know why so many people are freaked out by the PC/Windows side. Both OSX and Windows 7 have their strong points. One has more stability and the other has market share and it's kind of hard to get a lot of jobs, especially in this recession, if you don't know at least something about MS Windows.

You have all the bases covered that way knowing OS X and Windows.

Also if you have a desktop Mac or laptop as a main computer, I think a PC netbook with Windows is an excellent idea. And if the netbook doesn't work, you can always put OS X on it like a lot of threads here talk about in detail.

It's not like we are talking about a simple to use Mac OS vs. a very terrible Windows 3.1 or Windows 95A anymore. Windows, while less elegant than OS X, gets the job done well enough for the majority of computer users.

 

[Orange™]

Smug users like the OP is the #1 reason that Apple users are frowned upon.

I am a proud Apple user, and I can't stand people who brag (like the OP) and tell there friends how they're better than them. How they don't "understand"


The fact that the OP deleted his post tells me that others think the same way. I thought he was trollinga t first, but this guy is for real. How

 

[Piggie]

Windows, while less elegant than OS X, gets the job done well enough for the majority of computer users.

Do you realise just how that sentence comes across?

If anything, most PC users would consider OSX dumbed down so that "it gets the job done well enough for the majority of computer users"

SmugTastic

 

[alexprice]

This post pretty much explains why people hate so much. This person appears to be a complete moron. Its from the VN Boards:

"Their customers are dumb****s with computers, yet pretend like they know something (???)

Comparing Mac vs a PC? Mac is a PC, it is just a pre-built dummy proof PC for retards

By far the most anti-developer company ever

iPhone is alright, I got a 3GS and a iTouch myself, love em, wish I didn't had to spend 100 bucks to develop on it though not that anything I would create would be allowed by Apple anyhow

It's a ***** PC with pre-built mediocre parts set at a premium price and it "has style(??????" so yeah, deers and people obsessed with shiny **** will buy it

Their customer's actually think a good comparison of Apple vs PC is Lamborghini vs a plain car, custom-built PCs then must be the Bugatti Veyron (that is still cheaper then the Lamborghini in actuality, seeing how custom built can easily exceed the power of the best Mac desktop and still be way cheaper)

 

[IntelliUser]

Why do people hate the US (Apple)?

Government decisions (Apple's decisions)
Foreign policy (Developers, adobe flash)
Immigrants policy (being closed)
Excessive patriotism (fanboyism)
Obesity (excessive price)
Ignorance (arrogance)

In other words...stereotypes + jealousy.

 

[Plutonius]

But if Apple's market share on desktop sales continues to increase, the virus creator powers that be will make sure Macs are infected as well.

I agree with most of the above points but strongly disagree with the above mantra from the "pc" crowd. Market share (within reason) has little to do with the amount of viruses on Macs. Even if Macs are only 5% of the computers out there, it amounts to millions and millions of computers and people would be writing lots of viruses for the Mac if they could (look at the total number of non-trojan viruses available for a "pc"and the total number of non-trojan viruses on the Mac). The truth is that the architecture of the Mac makes it very tough to write a non-trojan virus for Macs. Windows 7 is a big improvement but, Microsoft needs to get rid of the registry in it's Windows architecture.

 

[63dot]

Do you realise just how that sentence comes across?

If anything, most PC users would consider OSX dumbed down so that "it gets the job done well enough for the majority of computer users"

SmugTastic

I think the whole idea is to make OS X simple and intuitive. Apple gets it right by making the computer experience fit with the biggest cross section possible. Windows, while much improved over the years than its earlier Windows versions, does not seem as intuitive and there are a lot of things a Windows user has to do to get proficient at before it starts working for that user.

Some people have to take a class, for instance, to navigate around Windows, or such was the case some years ago.

OS X just feels much more natural with an uncluttered desktop, recognizable icons, and fewer non-essential features.

The good thing of about the complexity of Windows is that it keeps techies like me employed. There are concepts in it that allow for a Microsoft Certified Professionals, A+ techs, and others to find a way to make a living at through tutoring, fixing, and maintaining what still seems like a cryptic operating system to a lot of people.

If OS X was the default worldwide standard that 95% percent or more of the world used in business, there would be a lot less work for us techies per customer. In the days of Windows NT and Windows 98, there were so many issues that there was literally too much work for the techies out there.

For the rare Mac OS call I would get, I would give a few lessons or fixes and that customer would be off and running and would not run into computer issues again. My Windows customers kept on getting issues. Sometimes the customer who used Windows did everything right, but I would still have to come in and reformat the OS with a fresh install as Windows gets less stable over time. I never had to do this for any Mac OS.

 

[JustSomeDude]

I agree with most of the above points but strongly disagree with the above mantra from the "pc" crowd. Market share (within reason) has little to do with the amount of viruses on Macs. Even if Macs are only 5% of the computers out there, it amounts to millions and millions of computers and people would be writing lots of viruses for the Mac if they could (look at the total number of non-trojan viruses available for a "pc"and the total number of non-trojan viruses on the Mac). The truth is that the architecture of the Mac makes it very tough to write a non-trojan virus for Macs. Windows 7 is a big improvement but, Microsoft needs to get rid of the registry in it's Windows architecture.

I have to disagree with the assertion that market share doesn't play a significant role. You also have to consider that the number of programmers for a particular OS are in proportion to the number of users. So this also decreases the likelihood of viruses.

Also, consider for the same amount of effort a virus writer has over 10x the payoff for windows just based on the number of users. When you consider what the windows computers are used for (such as finance, a lot of corporate and government stuff) the payoff for infecting windows computers rises that much more.

Additionally, as far as actually infecting windows computers, a lot of that is trojans also, it's just that must people lump that into 'viruses'.

 

[63dot]

I have to disagree with the assertion that market share doesn't play a significant role. You also have to consider that the number of programmers for a particular OS are in proportion to the number of users. So this also decreases the likelihood of viruses.

Also, consider for the same amount of effort a virus writer has over 10x the payoff for windows just based on the number of users. When you consider what the windows computers are used for (such as finance, a lot of corporate and government stuff) the payoff for infecting windows computers rises that much more.

Additionally, as far as actually infecting windows computers, a lot of that is trojans also, it's just that must people lump that into 'viruses'.

Let's assume OS X is more stable, which it probably is in most respects. I don't think we will find much argument there on this forum. I think most of us joined here because we prefer Macs.

I think if I were a hacker/cracker, I would go after the big target, which right now is Windows. If to just get recognized for my own personal ego, or for a financial payoff, Windows is the logical target. Even if MS gets the their OS much more secure, it will remain the top target out there.

Market share is the key ingredient as to why it's a target, whether it's for newer computers sold in 2010, last year's purchases, or purchases five or more years ago.

 

[drambuie]

I think the whole idea is to make OS X simple and intuitive. Apple gets it right by making the computer experience fit with the biggest cross section possible. Windows, while much improved over the years than its earlier Windows versions, does not seem as intuitive and there are a lot of things a Windows user has to do to get proficient at before it starts working for that user.

Some people have to take a class, for instance, to navigate around Windows, or such was the case some years ago.

OS X just feels much more natural with an uncluttered desktop, recognizable icons, and fewer non-essential features.

The good thing of about the complexity of Windows is that it keeps techies like me employed. There are concepts in it that allow for a Microsoft Certified Professionals, A+ techs, and others to find a way to make a living at through tutoring, fixing, and maintaining what still seems like a cryptic operating system to a lot of people.

If OS X was the default worldwide standard that 95% percent or more of the world used in business, there would be a lot less work for us techies per customer. In the days of Windows NT and Windows 98, there were so many issues that there was literally too much work for the techies out there.

For the rare Mac OS call I would get, I would give a few lessons or fixes and that customer would be off and running and would not run into computer issues again. My Windows customers kept on getting issues. Sometimes the customer who used Windows did everything right, but I would still have to come in and reformat the OS with a fresh install as Windows gets less stable over time. I never had to do this for any Mac OS.

OS X is supposed to be intuitive and easy to use, yet at Apple stores I see One to One being pushed as a necessity to new Mac purchasers. I'm a Windows user, and a prospective Mac purchaser. I just can't decide what I want, and as I procrastinate the systems seem to get refreshed.

As a Windows user I find OS X very easy to adapt to. The basic architecture of the GUIs is similar, so all you need to do is learn the different terminology, and mouse and key strokes as you go. The funny thing is, I had an Apple specialist tell me that if I bought a Mac I would definitely need One to One because of the differences between Windows and OS X. One to One must be a good profit maker.

 

[Spike88]

I'd love to get an Apple iMac unit. Nice modern 21.5" with i5 CPU would be really cool. Thus, why I'm waiting for this Christmas. Hopefully, their current CPUs and its current lower grade graphic card will be upgraded - by then. From a white board perspective, I'd love a new iMac (if its under my maximum price point).

But my wallet always says "only buy what one can afford". Let's face it, I can buy 3 x Windows xx units for the same price as a new iMac. Or if spread across a 2 year period, I can afford 1 x 17.3" Windows 7 Laptop (which we already bought), a smaller 15" Windows 7 laptop (planned for this Sept - back to school gift for our one kid) and a nice Desktop (planned for this Christmas - to replace my "old dog" Windows XP tower). For my email, internet surfing, MS Word/Excel/P-Point and other minor graphic items, the PC/Windows platforms will serve my family well. Especially for the same purchase price as 1 iMac destop box. But.... If I won the Lotto tomorrow, each of my family members would have their Apple laptops and Apple iMacs instead (of Windows xx platforms)...

BTW: If somone doesn't like your brand or color of vehicle, simply ignore them. Its your tool (or fun toy) - not theirs. Ignore them and keep enjoying... Works for me....

.

 

[63dot]

OS X is supposed to be intuitive and easy to use, yet at Apple stores I see One to One being pushed as a necessity to new Mac purchasers. I'm a Windows user, and a prospective Mac purchaser. I just can't decide what I want, and as I procrastinate the systems seem to get refreshed.

As a Windows user I find OS X very easy to adapt to. The basic architecture of the GUIs is similar, so all you need to do is learn the different terminology, and mouse and key strokes as you go. The funny thing is, I had an Apple specialist tell me that if I bought a Mac I would definitely need One to One because of the differences between Windows and OS X. One to One must be a good profit maker.

One on one for a couple of sessions isn't a bad thing for OS X. You probably wouldn't need much more.

With Windows, I had good paying customers for over two years since there's so much to learn. I made good money but I didn't fleece them, it's just that Windows, with all its extra (read unnecessary features), takes a long time to master.

 

[Stealthipad]

I do not hate Apple, I just do not like their software.

I use my iMac everyday to run Win 7 Pro and it does GREAT!

 

[DoFoT9]

I do not hate Apple, I just do not like their software.

I use my iMac everyday to run Win 7 Pro and it does GREAT!

sounds like you could have saved urself 50% and gotten a PC lol. at least the display/form is great

 

[Plutonius]

I have to disagree with the assertion that market share doesn't play a significant role. You also have to consider that the number of programmers for a particular OS are in proportion to the number of users. So this also decreases the likelihood of viruses.

Also, consider for the same amount of effort a virus writer has over 10x the payoff for windows just based on the number of users. When you consider what the windows computers are used for (such as finance, a lot of corporate and government stuff) the payoff for infecting windows computers rises that much more.

Additionally, as far as actually infecting windows computers, a lot of that is trojans also, it's just that must people lump that into 'viruses'.

I still disagree strongly with the pc mantra that "macs don't have viruses because of their market share". As I said earlier, 5% is still millions and millions of Macs. The payout may not be as big but it is still there. If people could easily write non-trojan viruses for the Mac, they would even if Macs were 1%.

 

[Vylen]

I still disagree strongly with the pc mantra that "macs don't have viruses because of their market share". As I said earlier, 5% is still millions and millions of Macs. The payout may not be as big but it is still there. If people could easily write non-trojan viruses for the Mac, they would even if Macs were 1%.

On the contrary, it should be easy to write a virus - you just need someone to initiate it. As i said before, you post up a compromised application installer that saves the virus to wherever. The installer runs a simple command-line script (in the guise of a clean-up script) to add a firewall rule to give the virus access to the outside world if necessary, and the virus passes itself on to people in the addressbook on the computer. Then, to do some damage, add itself as a system service that starts up in the background so the user is none the wiser. Nice an easy.

As with Windows, things are screwed as soon as you give something administrator privileges. While lots of Windows users don't even know what an administrator is and are one by default, Mac OS X users take it for granted that some application installers require a password to continue.

I just don't think much people have followed this approach though cause they can't be bothered, cause spreading a compromised file on the net can be a bit tricky - need to know who to target and what application to masquerade as. Plus, lots of developers provide downloads only on their site and that's where people would usually get it. But, it's still there as a possibility.

Long story short - it's easy to write a virus, hard to get it to spread.

 

[Plutonius]

On the contrary, it should be easy to write a virus - you just need someone to initiate it. As i said before, you post up a compromised application installer that saves the virus to wherever. The installer runs a simple command-line script (in the guise of a clean-up script) to add a firewall rule to give the virus access to the outside world if necessary, and the virus passes itself on to people in the addressbook on the computer. Then, to do some damage, add itself as a system service that starts up in the background so the user is none the wiser. Nice an easy.

As with Windows, things are screwed as soon as you give something administrator privileges. While lots of Windows users don't even know what an administrator is and are one by default, Mac OS X users take it for granted that some application installers require a password to continue.

I just don't think much people have followed this approach though cause they can't be bothered, cause spreading a compromised file on the net can be a bit tricky - need to know who to target and what application to masquerade as. Plus, lots of developers provide downloads only on their site and that's where people would usually get it. But, it's still there as a possibility.

Long story short - it's easy to write a virus, hard to get it to spread.

I believe you are only partially correct.

1) Like pcs, a virus could be written into an Mac application. This type of virus is a trojan which is why I specified non-trojan in the above post. The mac user would still have to stupidly agree to the installation (username / password) and SL does warn the user about known trojans (i.e. a Mac user could get a trojan virus but would have to agree to installing it by giving their username / password).

2) I would like you to name at least one non-trojan virus a mac user can get from an email. In general, macs can and do have email viruses but the viruses only affect pcs (i.e. macs are carriers which is why corporate macs should always have virus protection so as not to spread the viruses to pcs).

 

[aliensporebomb]

Another angle?

Maybe I can view this thing from another angle.

I'm a PC guy for my day gig.

I build pcs for fun, I have linux and windows boxes around the house and I'm an MCP / MCSE / MCSA / Comptia Security+ / A+.

But, I also like the operating system of the Mac and have several Macs around the house in addition to most of my family does. It prevents me from having to do windows tech support in my off hours for them.

I'm a musician and composer who also has been known to create videos too so the Mac is idea for that.

The vast majority of those who don't like Macs are rabbiting what other people have said and haven't used them at all themselves.

Some of them are overpriced and underpowered but I'd be hard pressed to say the latest iMac 27" with a corei7 is underpowered. Maybe the video card doesn't quite reach the heights of what the CPU can do but it's decent.

At the same time, it's two different types of people we're talking about.

I look at it a lot like the Fender vs. Gibson arguments on the electric guitar boards. Same thing. Fender = PC (inexpensive but utilitarian) and Gibson = Mac (expensive, you get what you pay for) etc.

 

[Vylen]

2) I would like you to name at least one non-trojan virus a mac user can get from an email. In general, macs can and do have email viruses but the viruses only affect pcs (i.e. macs are carriers which is why corporate macs should always have virus protection so as not to spread the viruses to pcs).

Done.

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2009-050514-1952-99&tabid=2

Admittedly, it's a worm, rather than a virus since it doesn't attach itself to existing programs. But it does automatically mail itself out using emails found in the Address Book - something I had suggested.

There's also this:
http://www.securelist.com/en/descriptions/147387/IM-Worm.OSX.Leap.a
Which, funnily enough, was first spotted on these forums. Also a worm, but uses iChat to spread - could've been classified as a virus though if it actually *worked*

On a side-note. Cause terminology here is bugging me, and some people may not be aware of the differences:
Virus: self-replicating, piggy-backs onto existing applications to do damage.
Worm: Like a virus, but does not piggy-back onto anything.
Trojan: not capable of self-replication, disguises as harmless application.
Of course, there can be hybrids, but those are the three distinct classifications of malware.

 

[ditzy]

On the contrary, it should be easy to write a virus - you just need someone to initiate it. As i said before, you post up a compromised application installer that saves the virus to wherever.

This automatically means that it isn't a virus. If you need someone to initiate it, it's a Trojan. There are mac Trojans, only a few but they do exist. Virus' as of now do not exist on OSX. That could change tomorrow, but today that is true.

 

[Vylen]

This automatically means that it isn't a virus. If you need someone to initiate it, it's a Trojan. There are mac Trojans, only a few but they do exist. Virus' as of now do not exist on OSX. That could change tomorrow, but today that is true.

No, you need someone to initiate a virus. A virus doesn't exist out of nowhere. Pass a virus on to an unsuspecting person by a download or whatever, then let it run its course afterwards

That's what I meant.

And no, it's not a trojan unless it actually provides backdoor access

[EDIT]
To actually use a virus analogy. You need a person to contract a virus before it can actually spread.
And ideally, you don't want that person to be you, or people you know. So you put the virus in a container in the middle of the city with a sticker saying "Open me for some awesomeness" and then an unsuspecting idiot opens it, and spreads it to the people they're in contact with - without their knowledge

 

[mjschranz]

I don't know why I even read most of the first two pages of this...

 

[JacaByte]

Apple users hate Windows and vice versa because we're all "ignert fanbois."

 

[D4F]

Cause they are morons (all together Apple, Android, MS fanboys)
How can you even "hate" somebody just cause he uses different device??

You got to be a quarterbrainer or something. Seriously.

 

[Mr. McMac]

I love both macs and PC's. No hate here. What I do dislike intensely, are fanboys. It's like they have no lives. Maybe they need to get laid...that's got to be it.