MAC or PC — Page 6

Is it called “The Windopes Podcast”? If not, it should be.

Neglify said:

Is it called “The Windopes Podcast”? If not, it should be.

Accidental Tech Podcast. It rose from the ashes of a car show.

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

Even if it’s old it’s still overpriced as shit.

I’ve tackled this before. It’s not overpriced.

Care to link me to the post in which you proved that?

I can.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/956362

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/956362

Also, most people don’t buy the Mac Pro. They buy laptops, as every year since about ten years ago, Apple’s sold more laptops than desktops.

Yeah, because you buy a Mac when you want to overpay to browse Facebook and write your manuscript in a Starbucks and not for any real work, in which case you’d buy a PC.

Look in almost any video production, audio production, or other creative work field, and you’ll see that they all use Macs.

Yeah, because they’ve stupidly bought into the absolutely ludicrous and pretentious notion that “Professional Artists use Macs” and the ridiculous “Apple Culture” which was cultivated specifically by Apple to sell computers to people who don’t know any better. My PC will run any of those programs better and with a longer lifetime (due to swapping hardware) than any Mac off the shelf.

I doubt your claims, but even if they are true, professionals like specific software and the environment that the Mac provides. It’s easier to develop pro software for the Mac.

People aren’t “brainwashed” into Apple. I mean, many Apple fans have been bearish on Apple for the past couple of years. It’s just that Apple is the best option.

Oh please, Apple has been trying so hard for ages to cultivate their hip, with it, modern professional image. It’s all they have. And some companies are more worried about looking hip and modern and with-it, so they buy overpriced computers so they can point at the Apple logo and say they are. Companies buy Apple products for the image. Apple would love you to believe that “professionals” use Apple, but big companies like ILM? They use PCs. Windows-based? Probably not (Linux usually), but they sure as hell don’t use Macs to make the effects for just about every movie that’s out there.

People aren’t brainwashed by Apple, they just have bought into Apples BS that professionals use them.

I’m a professional in the graphics industry. I’ve done everything from graphic design to print design to web design and I’ve used Macs extensively in various jobs and at school, and I would take my PC over any Mac, any day. I know many people in my industry who feel the same.

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

Even if it’s old it’s still overpriced as shit.

I’ve tackled this before. It’s not overpriced.

Care to link me to the post in which you proved that?

I can.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/956362

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/956362

Also, most people don’t buy the Mac Pro. They buy laptops, as every year since about ten years ago, Apple’s sold more laptops than desktops.

Yeah, because you buy a Mac when you want to overpay to browse Facebook and write your manuscript in a Starbucks and not for any real work, in which case you’d buy a PC.

Look in almost any video production, audio production, or other creative work field, and you’ll see that they all use Macs.

Yeah, because they’ve stupidly bought into the absolutely ludicrous and pretentious notion that “Professional Artists use Macs” and the ridiculous “Apple Culture” which was cultivated specifically by Apple to sell computers to people who don’t know any better. My PC will run any of those programs better and with a longer lifetime (due to swapping hardware) than any Mac off the shelf.

I doubt your claims, but even if they are true, professionals like specific software and the environment that the Mac provides. It’s easier to develop pro software for the Mac.

People aren’t “brainwashed” into Apple. I mean, many Apple fans have been bearish on Apple for the past couple of years. It’s just that Apple is the best option.

Oh please, Apple has been trying so hard for ages to cultivate their hip, with it, modern professional image. It’s all they have. And some companies are more worried about looking hip and modern and with-it, so they buy overpriced computers so they can point at the Apple logo and say they are. Companies buy Apple products for the image. Apple would love you to believe that “professionals” use Apple, but big companies like ILM? They use PCs. Windows-based? Probably not (Linux usually), but they sure as hell don’t use Macs to make the effects for just about every movie that’s out there.

People aren’t brainwashed by Apple, they just have bought into Apples BS that professionals use them.

I’m a professional in the graphics industry. I’ve done everything from graphic design to print design to web design and I’ve used Macs extensively in various jobs and at school, and I would take my PC over any Mac, any day. I know many people in my industry who feel the same.

If Apple were to all of a sudden turn to crap in the minds of people who use their products, they would switch away. They wouldn’t be happy about it (since the other options are meddling), but they would. Trust me, I know this firsthand.

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

Even if it’s old it’s still overpriced as shit.

I’ve tackled this before. It’s not overpriced.

Care to link me to the post in which you proved that?

I can.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/956362

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/956362

Also, most people don’t buy the Mac Pro. They buy laptops, as every year since about ten years ago, Apple’s sold more laptops than desktops.

Yeah, because you buy a Mac when you want to overpay to browse Facebook and write your manuscript in a Starbucks and not for any real work, in which case you’d buy a PC.

Look in almost any video production, audio production, or other creative work field, and you’ll see that they all use Macs.

Yeah, because they’ve stupidly bought into the absolutely ludicrous and pretentious notion that “Professional Artists use Macs” and the ridiculous “Apple Culture” which was cultivated specifically by Apple to sell computers to people who don’t know any better. My PC will run any of those programs better and with a longer lifetime (due to swapping hardware) than any Mac off the shelf.

I doubt your claims, but even if they are true, professionals like specific software and the environment that the Mac provides. It’s easier to develop pro software for the Mac.

People aren’t “brainwashed” into Apple. I mean, many Apple fans have been bearish on Apple for the past couple of years. It’s just that Apple is the best option.

Oh please, Apple has been trying so hard for ages to cultivate their hip, with it, modern professional image. It’s all they have. And some companies are more worried about looking hip and modern and with-it, so they buy overpriced computers so they can point at the Apple logo and say they are. Companies buy Apple products for the image. Apple would love you to believe that “professionals” use Apple, but big companies like ILM? They use PCs. Windows-based? Probably not (Linux usually), but they sure as hell don’t use Macs to make the effects for just about every movie that’s out there.

People aren’t brainwashed by Apple, they just have bought into Apples BS that professionals use them.

I’m a professional in the graphics industry. I’ve done everything from graphic design to print design to web design and I’ve used Macs extensively in various jobs and at school, and I would take my PC over any Mac, any day. I know many people in my industry who feel the same.

If Apple were to all of a sudden turn to crap in the minds of people who use their products, they would switch away. They wouldn’t be happy about it (since the other options are meddling), but they would. Trust me, I know this firsthand.

Apple doesn’t make bad computers (because the components they use are mostly the same as anything) and I’ve never meant to imply that, they just make overpriced computers, whereas PCs are infinitely more customizable, expandable, powerful, and cheaper.

People buy Apple because they want the Apple image, that’s the way it is.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

Tyrphanax said:

People buy Apple because they want the Apple image, that’s the way it is.

I’m gonna have to say in my experience and in many others, that’s blatantly false.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.

It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

People buy Apple because they want the Apple image, that’s the way it is.

I’m gonna have to say in my experience and in many others, that’s blatantly false.

Your experience as an Apple fan and the experiences of people who have bought into the idea of Apple Culture.

Tyrphanax said:

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

People buy Apple because they want the Apple image, that’s the way it is.

I’m gonna have to say in my experience and in many others, that’s blatantly false.

Your experience as an Apple fan and the experiences of people who have bought into the idea of Apple Culture.

None of the people I see on a regular basis who are Apple fans act in a way you seem to project on them. I mean, does this post by an Apple fan reek of Apple culture to you?

I can send more examples to prove my point.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.

It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.

My attention span only cares about things that matter.

File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?

I love that the only times yahoo-heehaw-wanksta-xxx posts more than a handful of words in one go are when he’s proselytizing for the Almighty M.A.C.

Neglify said:

M.A.C.

If you could do that again in the correct way (“Mac”), I would like your comment more.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.

It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.

My attention span only cares about things that matter.

File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?

No.

If you’re pinning an OS being great on being able to put a colon in your file names, you’re doing it very wrong.

Edit: This post is meant to back Frink up in response to ywhx.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.

It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.

My attention span only cares about things that matter.

File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?

No.

I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.

This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.

yhwx said:

Neglify said:

M.A.C.

If you could do that again in the correct way, I would like your comment more.

Sorry I know you hate abbreviations. Macintosh Apple Computer. Better?

imperialscum said:

This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.

No shit, but it’s a convenient way to separate Mac from decent machines whether they run Windows or Linux. Nobody is going to type out “MAC or Windows-or-Linux-Operating-System-Based-Personal-Computers.”

M.A.C. vs Real Computers

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.

It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.

My attention span only cares about things that matter.

File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?

What’s wrong with file name extensions? You can still name the file whatever you want (pretty much), there’s just a period followed by the file type afterward. What’s wrong with being able to see the file type? What’s “pesky” about it?

And you do realize that the file name extensions can be turned off, right?