Why Windows has the edge over the Mac (formerly 'Flame Away!...')

[Apple][Forever]

Hadn't seen this on the boards before (my apologies if this article's already been flamed to death) but this could be the WORST. ARTICLE. EVER.

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/komando/104.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

 

[RBMaraman]

Re: Flame Away! aka WORST ARTICLE EVER.

Originally posted by Apple][Forever
Hadn't seen this on the boards before (my apologies if this article's already been flamed to death) but this could be the WORST. ARTICLE. EVER.

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/komando/104.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

I read that article, and that lady is the stupidest person that has ever written a computer comparrison article! She doesn't know what the heck she is talking about! For God sakes, she suggested they put a floppy drive in the iMac! Can you believe that! Floppy drives are extremely out of date! She is just one of those stupid Windows users who absolutely love throwing there money at a stupid company like Microsoft. It's a shame that people like her are allowed to express their opinions in open forums. People like her should be beaten with Windows PC's being thrown at her by Mac users.

 

[Hemingray]

I think you guys are being WAY too harsh! After reading the article, I was surprised you guys jumped on her like that. She didn't all-out bash the Mac, she gave a few reasons why it's not the best for an all-business environment. (Keep in mind, she's not a regular consumer like the iMac is largely targeted towards.)

- One Button Mouse: I have to agree with her on this one. But if Apple never makes a two button mouse with scroll wheel, I won't get upset, because I know I can always purchase a 3rd party mouse that will do exactly what I need it to.

- 15" screen: That was a mistake on Apple's part, I think. I think they definitely should have loaned her the 17". What were they thinking?

- No floppy drive: This is the one complaint that I can honestly bash this person for. YOU MUST BE JOKING! You want a floppy? Fine, get a peripheral USB one! PCs have always been slow to drop legacy technologies, which is what puts these poor people in this mindset.

If the iMac's not for her, fine. Have fun on WinXP.

 

[Taft]

I didn't think it was the "worst ever." That imbecile on Salon gets my vote for that one.

But this woman did seem confused on a few issues. Like Clarisworks...thats a pretty big editorial miss. Also, on the 15" monitor thing, she said she uses it for business purposes and is used to a 21" screen. Well the iMac is a consumer machine and Macs can be bought that are capable of attaching to her handy 21" monitor. I'd like her to find a Wintel all-in-one machine with a 21" flat screen that looks as good as the iMacs and doesn't cost a small fortune.

The other thing that surprised me was her assertion that everything is slower when switching between applications and for Photoshop filters. On app switching, I've never had a problem. I have more of a problem on my PIII 1400 MHz machine at work (things "stick" more when switching windows and apps). Also, I'd venture a guess that she was using a pre-Jaguar OS X. Her observations now would likely be a lot different.

And Photoshop filters usually perform very well against the Intel world. I'd like to see some benchmarks from her tests because I've seen other benchmarks and they keep up pretty well with x86 processors. Interesting...

Overall, I found this woman pretty uninformed for "the host of the nation's largest talk-radio show about computers and the Internet, heard on more than 400 stations in the United States." I'd expect more of a technological/professional view from a person who has such a wide audience.

Taft

 

[Stike]

OMG

How stupid can one be?
Well, either that, or that woman is being paid.

Ok, why does she say "speed matters" if she is writing with WORD? Switching between apps cant be as slow as described. And that one crash - well, obviously it was made by Netscape.

Silly to want a floppy. She has a ethernet, goddamn.. arg... If she does not achieve to setup Mail, well... says it all, right?

This site is hosted by MSN. So dont take that text for true. Not even a single word. Lies!! All lies!!!

That human being is a pain in my butt...

 

[Rower_CPU]

From my post in the Private Forums...

Ha...what a ridiculous "article". It's exactly the kind of tripe I'd expect on an MSN site.

Apple has a native e-mail application, but I couldn't get it to work. That was no big deal, really.

How the hell can you fail to get Mail to work? And she uses Netscape for mail?!?!!?

Windows Explorer's counterpart is Macintosh HD.

Oh really? Next thing you'll be telling us that Sherlock is the same as Network Neighborhood.

This particular machine has a 1.533-gigahertz chip from Advanced Micro Devices. With Intel chips approaching 3 gigahertz, my AMD machine is at the bottom of the Windows heap.

Hardly, that chip isn't even a year old. Many PC systems are still at or below 1 GHz.

*sigh*...Did we really expect anything different? It's funny how she begs not be flamed at the start of the article...

 

[Str8edgepunker]

Go to #$#@

This lady is an ^&$hole. First this quote: "Apple has a native e-mail application, but I couldn't get it to work." Anyone with a quarter of their brain barely functioning can get mail to work!

"The iMac will do most of what Windows does, but it often does things differently. "
-Of course it will, its a completely different OS! This just shows here complete stupidity as anyone would have realized that they are completely different, even those with less than a quarter of their brain barely functioning.

"The iMac came with ClarisWorks"
-What the heck are you talking about ClarisWorks for? They come with AppleWorks! And 90% of people who use office only use 10% of the features it offers, so it is great for home users.

"The most irritating drag came when jumping between Internet Explorer and Word. The iMac would sometimes take a couple seconds to make the switch."
-A couple seconds?! Try instantaneous. My dad owns an iMac and his switches from IE to Word almost instantly.

"But, golly, 800 MHz just isn't very fast today."
-THIS COMPUTER IS FOR HOME USE!

There are other issues such as price but I think I did enough bashing. This woman is stupid period. People like her deserve windoze and windoze deserves them.

However, one thing that is interesting is that most people are like that.

 

[RogueLdr]

She seemed to just miss the point...

Her immediate write-off of the iApps was the largest problem I had with her article. The iApps are what makes the iMac what it is. She does state that they are not useful for what she uses a computer for, but misses the point that that is not what the iMac is for. It would be like saying, "Gee, that Ferrari sure can handle and corner, but its performance as a pickup truck is woefully substandard."

She also seems to confuse familiarity with intuitiveness. The fact that she was able to use the iMac right out of the box, even though it is an entirely new operating system (to her), speaks very highly of the intuitiveness of the Mac OS.

And I must agree with other posters that being unable to make Mail work lends one to believe that she is not savvy in the least when it comes to learning new things on computer. I just looked at Mail, and after going to File>Import Mailboxes, was directed to which application I would like to import from. Not too difficult, IMHO.

RL

 

[alex_ant]

To echo what Hemingray said... I don't understand what the big deal about this article is. She writes from the perspective of an average, non-techie computer user. Once again we see in this thread the sad mentality that Macs are perfect for everybody and are better than PCs in all situations, when that's not true. I give this woman credit for actually keeping an open mind and giving the iMac an honest try - and for writing a fair review.

I'll bet half of you knobheads didn't even read the article.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: She seemed to just miss the point...

Originally posted by RogueLdr
And I must agree with other posters that being unable to make Mail work lends one to believe that she is not savvy in the least when it comes to learning new things on computer. I just looked at Mail, and after going to File>Import Mailboxes, was directed to which application I would like to import from. Not too difficult, IMHO.

I've heard numerous reports of Mail.app failing to launch, crashing abnormally, etc. The author doesn't provide enough information to ascertain whether her failure to get Mail to work was her fault. I would be surprised if she were not able to configure it. Mail -> Preferences... she's obviously not that stupid.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Taft
The other thing that surprised me was her assertion that everything is slower when switching between applications and for Photoshop filters. On app switching, I've never had a problem. I have more of a problem on my PIII 1400 MHz machine at work (things "stick" more when switching windows and apps). Also, I'd venture a guess that she was using a pre-Jaguar OS X. Her observations now would likely be a lot different.

She said she got her iMac in May. Like most non-techies, she probably didn't get a RAM upgrade and left the machine in its default configuration of (I presume) 256MB. In that case, the sluggishness she was experiencing is no surprise at all. When a simple MP3 player takes up 30 megs of RAM, plus the Finder and a web browser that together take up a minimum of 50MB, on top of Word which takes up a minimum of 25MB with no documents open, I find it surprising that she didn't find things even more sluggish. Yeah, she should have got a RAM upgrade, but maybe OS X and its applications shouldn't be so damned bloated to begin with.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by alex_ant
To echo what Hemingray said... I don't understand what the big deal about this article is. She writes from the perspective of an average, non-techie computer user. Once again we see in this thread the sad mentality that Macs are perfect for everybody and are better than PCs in all situations, when that's not true. I give this woman credit for actually keeping an open mind and giving the iMac an honest try - and for writing a fair review.

I'll bet half of you knobheads didn't even read the article.

Alex

If that was truly the case we wouldn't have a problem with the article and we could write it off as yet another uninformed piece of "journalism".

The problem with Kim Komando (I hope to God that's a pseudonym) is that she puports to be anything but an "average, non-techie computer user".

Here's the snippet from the web page about her:

Kim Komando is the host of the nation's largest talk-radio show about computers and the Internet, heard on more than 400 stations in the United States. She writes a weekly column for more than 100 newspapers and a Q&A column for USA Today. She also publishes a free weekly e-mail newsletter.

Someone who hosts a talk-radio show of that magnitude, and writes articles professionally has much more influence over people than the "average, non-techie computer user".

She admits in the introduction to the article that it's a no win situation for her to write it, and that she was in no way influenced by the fact that her article was going up on MSN. Then why the hell did she write it?

 

[Taft]

Originally posted by alex_ant
To echo what Hemingray said... I don't understand what the big deal about this article is. She writes from the perspective of an average, non-techie computer user. Once again we see in this thread the sad mentality that Macs are perfect for everybody and are better than PCs in all situations, when that's not true. I give this woman credit for actually keeping an open mind and giving the iMac an honest try - and for writing a fair review.

I'll bet half of you knobheads didn't even read the article.

Alex

As I stated before, I found her ineptitude surprising considering she is a computer columnist and radio host. Given the fact that she has, by the site's estimation, a VERY large audience, one would hope that she would have more than a cursory knowledge of computers and how they work.

I did read the article. The whole article. And I was surprised at the errors, lack of knowledge and lack of hard facts I saw in the article.

Taft

 

[swahilibill]

she has got to be the stupidist bitch I have ever heard of writing an article. She has no idea what she is talking about, floppy, yeah what a flamer. She has no evidence for any of her attacks, you dont want a single button, get a dual, and that has nothing to do with the iMac itself, what a stupid women who thinks she knows something, but she actually does not know ****!

 

[Pepzhez]

It seems to me that any Mac is overkill for this woman's needs. What does she claim she needs? MS Word and a floppy (!) drive. But then a 1.5 gHz AMD is overkill for that matter. I have an old 266 mHz Pentium II machine in a closet that will run all of her tasks perfectly fine on Windows 98 - and, yes, it has a floppy drive.

I work at a university in which offices all over campus are littered with aging Pentium I and II's and they are actually adequate for the average user who at most uses MS Word and maybe Powerpoint or Excel, some net browsing and e mail and ... well, that's about it, really.

Keep in mind that the "average" computer user hardly knows what a CD-R is, thinks floppies are the greatest thing ever invented and thinks it's amazing when they discover that they can actually play music CD's through tinny, plastic speakers on their aging machines.

The Mac never was a business computer and never will be. Nor should Apple waste any effort attempting to capture any of that market.

I do have to agree that the woman writing in Salon last month wins the prize for the stupidest article ever; this one is just scatterbrained in the usual, mundane sense.

 

[Taft]

Originally posted by alex_ant

She said she got her iMac in May. Like most non-techies, she probably didn't get a RAM upgrade and left the machine in its default configuration of (I presume) 256MB. In that case, the sluggishness she was experiencing is no surprise at all. When a simple MP3 player takes up 30 megs of RAM, plus the Finder and a web browser that together take up a minimum of 50MB, on top of Word which takes up a minimum of 25MB with no documents open, I find it surprising that she didn't find things even more sluggish. Yeah, she should have got a RAM upgrade, but maybe OS X and its applications shouldn't be so damned bloated to begin with.

I am running a "original" G4 400MHz with 384 MB of RAM all original hardware. I have never experienced second or more lags in switching applications.

Scrolling, resizing windows, opening windows, and minimizing to the dock...yes, I've experienced interface lags in older versions of OS X (and in a few cases with 10.2). But not in switching between apps. The only exceptions to this are very slow or memory hoggish apps. Mozilla, Netscape, and Java-based apps (like Limewire) come to mind, but other apps are generally responsive as those apps crunch away with calculations.

And the author specifically states that she doesn't use iApps and therefore didn't use a 30% RAM-using version of iTunes. And given your estimates, the total RAM consumption of the rest is under 100MB. Giving the OS a lot of room to move without a lot of paging.

But that is beside the point. My point is that I have not experienced the symptoms she describes on an inferior computer. I find multitasking on OS X far superior to under OS 9 and far more clean than under Windows on a superior machine at work (PIII Compaq with 512 RAM).

Is it so hard to believe that a person who gets application's names wrong (Clarisworks!!!!) and dismisses a suite of applications saying, "Aw, they're probably not all that great anyway," might be mistaken about some of the lags that she reports on. This person is supposedly guiding a large amount listeners/readers in the area of technology. I expect more from the people I get my information/opinions from.

Taft

 

[pianojoe]

Well, she's just a windows user complaining that the iMac is not enough like windows.

Thank God.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Taft
I am running a "original" G4 400MHz with 384 MB of RAM all original hardware. I have never experienced second or more lags in switching applications.

Scrolling, resizing windows, opening windows, and minimizing to the dock...yes, I've experienced interface lags in older versions of OS X (and in a few cases with 10.2). But not in switching between apps. The only exceptions to this are very slow or memory hoggish apps. Mozilla, Netscape, and Java-based apps (like Limewire) come to mind, but other apps are generally responsive as those apps crunch away with calculations.

I would attribute her complaints of app-switch lags to either very bloated apps like the ones you mentioned, or to creative license - experiencing lag due to one thing and attributing it to something else for the sake of simplicity and ease of explaining to non-computer-literate people. I think the point remains that with 256MB, you're probably going to experience a fair amount of lag. I know I do.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If that was truly the case we wouldn't have a problem with the article and we could write it off as yet another uninformed piece of "journalism".

The problem with Kim Komando (I hope to God that's a pseudonym) is that she puports to be anything but an "average, non-techie computer user".

Where does she purport this?

Someone who hosts a talk-radio show of that magnitude, and writes articles professionally has much more influence over people than the "average, non-techie computer user".

Yes, she does, so what's your point? The funny thing is that if she had written the opposite article - slightly "against" Windows PCs instead of slightly against the Mac - you'd have praise for it coming out your ears.

She admits in the introduction to the article that it's a no win situation for her to write it, and that she was in no way influenced by the fact that her article was going up on MSN. Then why the hell did she write it?

Page views = ad $$.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Taft
As I stated before, I found her ineptitude surprising considering she is a computer columnist and radio host. Given the fact that she has, by the site's estimation, a VERY large audience, one would hope that she would have more than a cursory knowledge of computers and how they work.

And she presumably does... just not Macs. I can't really hold that against her, seeing as how the Mac does only hold a few percent of the market she is apparently catering to. If I'm Joe Blow, I would probably rather listen to a computer talk show by someone who is kinda like me than by someone who knows and will go to great lengths to explain what a virtual filesystem is (in the comparison between Macintosh HD and My Computer). Yeah, she gets some facts wrong, but they're more or less trivial, and you have to keep in mind that there are strict word count limitations to articles like this. I think she wrote a pretty good article, all things considered.

 

[uhlawboi80]

ok, i will have to agree that this woman is a bit touched in the head. but then again, she is a radio talk show host! i get bored and watch this dumb radio talk show woman's tv show. she told a man who was sunk in debt to just cut up his credit cards and pay them off despite them being way over limit, while most financial planners would say, jump ship, over CitiBunk 35-40% (which they would take) and move on...MORAL: talk show hosts have minimal knowledge and are only usefull to the most poorly educated sector on a topic. She knows less about computers than 90% of the people on this forum, so you have to take that into account...just my thought on it. she simply doesnt know, and at least she doesnt trash what she doesnt get

 

[Sun Baked]

What else were you expecting?

Especially when you see that is was a blonde that wrote up the computer comparison article.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Yes, she does, so what's your point? The funny thing is that if she had written the opposite article - slightly "against" Windows PCs instead of slightly against the Mac - you'd have praise for it coming out your ears.

Actually, the funny thing is that it would have never been published, and if it had, it would have passed under the radar of most mac users.

 

[davidc2182]

hey hey hey

honestly with some of the things i agree with her, like i think apple should make an ergonomic keyboard, and a 2 button mouse with scroll wheel and a blue LED just little things, I know steve jobs doesn't want us to turn the imac off just put it to sleep, but putting the power button on the butt of the machine is stupid as heck, and yes the imac was slow, but with the Jaguar upgrade its plenty speedy, alas, i got rid of my ibook, i'm saving money up to purchase either an imac, or powermac whichever i may need, at said time, cuz the g3 sucks! anyway the lady didnt totally bash the mac, or winblows but ya know how it is!

 

[rice_web]

My favorite comment is when she states that the iMac is price from $800 - $2000. Where can I find an iMac for $800?