Computer-related pet peeves

Post Reply New Topic

Here some of mine:

1: People who say their macs "just work" and never crash. Macs are computers and suspectable to crashes like any other computer. Believe me, I've seen it happen. The Macs at college kept getting kernal panics over certain programs.

2: The term "micro$oft". Especially ironic when Appl€ fanboys use it. When one says it, he/she is instantly a twat in my books. Sure they may be a "oh no, big bad company!", but are other companies like Apple any better? Nope.

3: Claiming to be superior to others by the OS/hardware you use.

4: Linux fanboys. I don't hate linux, but they have the same type of smugness as Apple fanboys.

5: Open source. A lot of it is buggy and crap to be honest.

6: Overdone desktops with loads of effects just to show off. What's the point?

7: Mac vs PC arguments. Both are computers, use them.

And so on.

I'm a Mac user, but like you said, crashes happen to any computer. It's stupid to think otherwise.


Heck, I've seen a ton of people from the PC community use the term "micro$oft"...So it has nothing to do with Apple fanboys, really.


Some people get overly obsessive about their technology, I suppose.


Hate to tell you, but PC/Windows fanboys are just as smug as Apple ones. One thing I can't stand are PC fanboys thinking they are better than Apple fanboys when they are doing the exact same thing...Bashing the opponent. Hypocrisy at its finest.


Absolutely


A lot of people only care about "Ooh-Ahh" features, surprisingly.


Here's my take on the whole Mac vs PC thing. They are both great computers, but each have their perks. A PC can outperform a Mac on a given task, and vice-versa. It's to the point where comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended).

Appl€
It's the first time I saw it spelt this way. If only € is easier to type, I'll use it every time I mention Apple, oh I mean Appl€.

That goes without saying. PC users can be smug but from what I've seen, most of it seems to be reactionary. Plus Apple themselves have a history of various smug and condescending adverts, deluding you into thinking that buying a different computers some how makes you "think different". I personally find Linux/Apple fanboys to be the worst, because they seem to have a higher fanboy per computer ratio than PC uers.



When I referred to Apple fanboys, I meant the fact that they think their company is less "evil" than Microsoft, while in reality both companies are as bad as each other. So it's always ironic when you see one use that term. Of course I've seen Windows/Linux users use it, and I'd consider them to be twats also. The term just sounds so juvinile, almost like a hot-topic punk screaming "ANARCHY".

You may as well do a Windows vs PC if you are going to do Mac vs PC. I think you'll find it's Apple vs PC. BUT more likely better to do Linux vs, Windows vs or Mac OS vs rather than the structure. Apple computers are now based on the PC architecture thanks to Intel who probably know nothing about the architecture of the Apple that makes it different. Software probably...

Macintosh computers have a history of emphasizing ease of use, to the extent that even a complete incompetent can use a Mac with little difficulty. There is very little configuration that needs to be done by the user to get up and running, unlike Windows and Linux. I personally have found OSX to be among the most stable operating systems I've ever used. Is it possible for OSX to crash? Of course. Is it a common occurrence as it is in certain other operating systems? Hell no. In Vista, there was a known and unpatched bug involving HP printer drivers and random crashes in Office 2007. MS never bothered to try to fix it, instead blaming HP. Meanwhile HP drivers worked flawlessly for me in OSX and various Linux incarnations.


Using Linux doesn't make me superior to Windows users. It just means I use a superior operating system.


We have cause to be smug. We get a better system without forking over tons of cash or our souls for it. Apple fanboys also have reason to be smug: they do have a superior system to Windows.

Also, there's this:



I question how much of it you've tried, and whether you've installed it properly. It is possible to get really buggy open source software (since it has an open development system, you can download and install a work in progress before it's ready for a real release) but I personally do not run into very many bugs, and I run open source software almost exclusively. And I often run beta (or sometimes even alpha) versions of many programs.


Because you can, in a lot of cases. Some of the fancy Compiz stuff is actually useful, but things like wobbly windows and closed windows folding themselves up into paper airplanes is just to show that you can do it.


"Mac vs PC" arguments annoy me too, but for a different reason. Macs are PCs. My MacBook has the same Intel Core 2 processor as you'll find in many Dells, and most of the other internal components are similar or identical to what you would buy from any other hardware manufacturer. The difference is the software. When I loaded Vista up on my MacBook, was it a Mac or a PC? And how about when I use Linux? Is a PC running Linux no longer a PC?

Let me rephrase that for you. In literal terms: "two out of three fanboys are the worst."

Dont like that?

Lets assume that every mac and linux user is a fanboy. And that only 1 in 10 windows user is. ( higher fanboy per computer ratio than PC uers)

Being generous and giving 2% of the market to linux, and 6% to OSX, that leaves 92.0% of the market to windows, of which only 9.2% are fanboys.

Due to the vagaries of statistics, its fair to say that 8% and 9.2 are close enough to call even, right? We could say 9% to OSX and 1% to linux and the spread is even less after all.

So what you are really saying is "all of the non windows users are worse than the windows fanboys". Your bias shows.

You're trying to put a subjective opinion as fact. You may think it's "better", others may not. In reality there's far too many variables: The computer it's on, the person's competence etc.

Personally I find Linux to be too much hassle to use, and OSX is far too dumbed down for my liking.

What bias? This is from personal observation, it's neither right or wrong. I don't go on forums or any other places that are orientated to windows users, there's probably a lot of fanboyism there just as worse. I do get the impression that Linux/Apple fanboys are at least more pretentious and self righteous.

Of course, NORMAL windows/mac/linux users are not annoying at all. Don't be thinking I'm attacking your precious unix ripoff.

Last edited by Paddy789 on 26 Jul 2009, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, my comment about me having a superior system was partially tongue-in-cheek (though it is true). On technical grounds, Windows is pretty much indefensible when compared to any of the UNIX-based systems.


And I personally find Windows both too dumbed-down and too much hassle. OSX is dumbed down, but it does so successfully- everything pretty much "just works." Linux may not always work perfectly out of the box- but since it's not dumbed down, you can find out how to fix it. With Windows, they give you neither a flawless out of the box experience nor the tools to effectively solve your own problems.

Mac is for people who don't want to know how their computer works.
Linux is for people who do want to know how their computer works.
DOS is for people who want to know why their computer doesn't work.
And Windows is for people who don't want to know why their computer doesn't work.

The whole "rippoff" thing is where I get annoyed with Mac fanboys the most. The ones who claim that Steve Jobs basically invented computers and everything MS has ever done is just a knock-off of something Apple had already done. Steve Wozniak even claimed that Apple won the desktop wars because all computers today basically look like Macs- implying that Windows copied Mac OS.

Heh, thanks for the fanboy example orwell, now i can just point at your posst instead of trying to explain what is annoying about linux users. Honestly though, when are people going to realise that an operating system is only as good as it's user? Someone who is complete incompetent won't be able to use linux, and will crash windows. Someone who is skilled with computers will be able to use linux, and will never see windows crash. It really is as simple as that, trying to claim a certain OS is better than another is illogical, because worth is subjective.

That again, is subjective.

Technically, Linux makes it more harder for hackers to get into it and mess things up, but my view that it's more of a hassle to use does not make it any "better". I have used windows for a fair amount of my life with computers, and I rarely got any major problems. I've never got hacked, never had viruses, the worst was the odd tracking cookie. I don't even use anti-virus software or a decent firewall (running on the router's firewall). The reason why that's possible is because I don't go on websites I shouldn't be going on and I use a thing called "common sense" when it comes to downloading things. It shows that user competence is a major factor.

It was a humourous sentence, don't take it seriously.

Worse of all(and rarest) are the anti-geeks. I once encountered a comment in a forum - by a mac user - that the desire to change ones computer wallpaper was geeky and deplorable.

One would imagine that person selecting an automobile based on popularity of model and color and then refusing to add any personalized touches. Not even floor mats.

Which was certainly an eye opener for me. It showed the vast grey area in the publics mind as to what constitutes geeky, and thus fanboyism as well. Not only was I far far over the line in the mind of this person, but you would be too, Paddy. I doubt they could render the differences between our respective computer manias.

Even poor computerlove would be seen as a traitor to digital conformity I am afraid.

in response to the first post:

1) all computers crash, it just happens.

2) meh, not really all that bothered

3) elitists, I dont much care for them either.

4) agreed.

// Below is the only statement i really beg to differ with.

5) Theres just as much crap in closed source in terms of percentage of bad vs percentage of good. I mean look at any commercial software shelf in any retail store and tell me honestly that at least half of it isnt absolute garbage. The issue is 90% of programmers have no business programming, closed or open. you can either get a good closed source app which likely costs a considerable sum or you can get a terrible closed source app which might be cheaper or worse in some cases also cost a considerable sum and be buggy and awful to use. The same really can be applied to all software open or not. Its all 90% pure terrible, difference is in open source at least it usually doesn't cost you anything when you encounter the terrible. Not to mention the other benefits such as actually having some ownership in the product you are using, not that you necessarily have to care, but I do. Some of the most successful closed source products were built from open source contributions, such as pieces of the windows OS, particularly regarding the network stack. That and almost the entire backbone and gears of what you call the Internet is built largely upon open source technology, yeh, open source totally sucks.. *shrug*

6) I dont care, people will configure their desktops how they please.

7) use what you like

Last edited by TOGGI3 on 27 Jul 2009, 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.