How are you less able to use an Android?
What's the cheapest new iPhone these days? My Android cost about £100 and it shows all the same internet that yours does. Your camera is better, but my access to software is better.
I've not owned, but have used macs since the Apple scales fell from my eyes, mostly big studio jobbies, typically the largest and most powerful beasts available, typically kept under a soundproofed cover because fucking hell.
The claim that they're more stable than Windows was always being made and it's always been untrue.
They freeze a lot during multi track recording and editing, and Apple propaganda states they are designed for creative media work. Freezing leads to a crash 50% of the time, maybe 1 in 10 crashes results in permanent loss of recording data. That's a little better to how it was in the 00s, but still unacceptable.
Windows machines are not perfect, but when software freezes it typically doesn't take the operating system with it.
Also I've kept up with Apple's unnovations over the years. They have not technically improved anything since the low numbered iPhones, it's all been branding and user exploitation. The EU had to step in to stop their proprietary cable cuntery FFS.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sat 22 Feb 2025, 1:37,
Reply)
Which editing software?
Because that sounds like your problem. Not the platform.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Sat 22 Feb 2025, 8:37,
Reply)
I do all my business accounts on my commodore plus 4
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Sat 22 Feb 2025, 9:51,
Reply)
Mostly Pro Tools and Cubase,
and also most of the cheaper and superior DAWs too. Hardly software with a reputation for failing, at least not on a proper PC.
It might just be the way I work, yeah.
Or it might be that because I have no love for Apple I am a lot readier to admit their faults than, say, someone who has invested tens of thousands on inferior products and who can't admit it to themselves.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sat 22 Feb 2025, 14:00,
Reply)
Your problem is
using new Macs. If you know how to use them and modify them for performance, 2007-2012 Macs and Macbooks are faster than the modern ones.
(, Sat 22 Feb 2025, 20:36, Reply)
Oh I thought they were meant to 'just work.'
I didn't know I was meant to use my soldering iron on them. How do I pop the case open?
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sat 22 Feb 2025, 23:19,
Reply)
If you're thinking about a Mac the way most people use Macs you're making a mistake.
I use a Mac specifically because I like the look and feel. I'm still on a version where Aqua is heavily used, and it looks way better than any Windows versions - even now (unless you count Win2k machines with Windowblinds, then you've got a competitor)
The modifications to my Mac just required slotting in the RAM after unscrewing the back. I then installed a way earlier OSX version over a more recent one via a burned DVD.
I mainly use my Mac with Wine programs and multiple virtual machines (since Windows often has more available freeware, such as 7zip) - I use Photoshop CS3 in an XP virtual machine (since I don't trust Adobe) and use Chrome to browse the web in Windows 8.1, which can render any webpage well. (Alas, a 2010 version of Safari no longer does the job)
It's certainly not for everyone, but at least for me it's worth it. (and I wouldn't use Windows 10/any later versions of OSX anyway, since I distrust both modern M$ and Apple)
It somewhat also comes down to the fact that Mac can run Windows apps in Wine quite easily (especially with WineBottler) whilst you can't run Mac apps without an entire virtual machine on Windows, and even then, it's harder to set up a MacOSX virtual machine than an Windows virtual machine.
(, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 11:02, Reply)
Windows users wanting to run Mac software must be pretty rare though.
I honestly can't think of any Mac-only software that Windows users are jealous of.
When your main selling point of a Mac is that it can, when fed enough energy, competently emulate Windows, you should realise the better solution is spending half the money for 2-4 times the power, speed and capacity on a Windows machine.
'Look and feel' I assume refers to animations and transitions, gimmicks that a serious computer user would switch off.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 14:59,
Reply)
I find "Serious Computer User" humorous
Are you really a real serious house user unless you live in a concrete bungalow in the middle of the woods? Anything more would be a gimmick that a serious user would remove. What about gardens? All those topiary and fountains are useless. Just tear it all out and replace it with dirt.
MacOSX can do everything Windows can (and more) but while looking nice - plus, MacOSX has UI consistency whilst Windows hasn't since 2000.
(, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 16:02, Reply)
I thought you said my problem is not modifying them for performance
but here you are saying you keep all the performance hogging gimmicks switched on.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 17:54,
Reply)
Even without the animation "gimmicks" OSX still looks nicer and more consistent than Windows
I'm talking explicitly about the style of the interface itself - not the animations.
Your problem isn't just not modifying them for performance, which doesn't really need to be done for most users.
(, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 17:57, Reply)
You can customise them both to look the same.
So now you're left with 'I prefer the default desktop scheme.'
I have many problems with Apple, they're a disgraceful company. I don't mean to victim blame.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 19:19,
Reply)
You can't.
Customize Windows 10 to at bare minimum fix the image above, I'll wait. Despite that, it's not just "I prefer the default desktop scheme" - it's that I prefer the workflow and UNIX in general.
(, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 19:45, Reply)
What needs fixing?
Genuine question.
RMB context menus having different ...contexts?
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sun 23 Feb 2025, 19:57,
Reply)
It's not just that, but a good example of the problem.
The taskbar in Windows having two different RMB menu styles for the same program is ridiculous.
Or perhaps look at the inconsistent styled icons? When I used more modern Windows versions it was possible to see 4 generations of different icon styles in regular use.
(, Mon 24 Feb 2025, 8:55, Reply)
Sorry, My point is that they are average machines 2-8 times overpriced, that they freeze, crash, and are unfit for the purpose they're ostensibly designed for,
and you're apparently wanging on about the design of icons and variation in context menus.
I mean, if that stuff seems important to you, there-there.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Mon 24 Feb 2025, 13:47,
Reply)
The W11 context menu is great
It's given a new design, but all the actual options you want are behind the "show more options" menu, which, upon clicking, loads the original context menu, original design and all. Such 'mazing UX. Such wow.
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Mon 24 Feb 2025, 13:58,
Reply)
At that point
Why not just make it show one big, beautifully designed button that says "open crap"?
(, Mon 24 Feb 2025, 16:54, Reply)