.
Logo
Print this page
Save to disk

Mac at 25: Why I still hate them

/v3-uk/news/1985721/mac-why-i-hate

23 Jan 2009, Iain Thomson  , V3

Apple
Mac at 25: an alternative view

So we've had 25 years of GUI Macs, but I for one won't be putting up any bunting or hiring a marching band. Why? Because I hate the things.

The media seems full of stories by journalists reminiscing about the first time they used a Mac, what a revelation they were and how the world is a brighter, sunnier place because Steve Jobs, or in actual fact Steve Wozniak, created such a work of genius.

So, in the interest of balance, and because my esteemed editor knew that I'd kill, or at least seriously maim, to write a piece like this, here is my take on why Macs aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Software
For someone who'd grown up programming Sinclair ZX81s and DOS systems, there was a certain amount of geek awe the first time I encountered a Mac. The GUI made the computer easy for anyone to use, and made it possible for a few people in an office to turn out magazines and handbooks perfectly easily.

But, as time went on, the Mac moved from being a useful tool to something to be loathed. Sure, the GUI looked good but, when you're used to a command line interface and all that you can do with it, the Mac OS has some serious disadvantages.

Firstly, there was software compatibility. Because the prevailing ethos at Apple was 'our way or the highway' the company persisted in using an operating system that couldn't run 90 per cent of the software on the market, and developers had a tough time coding for it and making a living.

Wanted to buy games for your Mac? Well, you had a tiny pool of options and those companies that did convert PC games for the Mac did so after considerable delay most of the time.

Then there was the operating system itself. If you wanted to get into it and change the settings you had to use a tool called ResEdit. Using ResEdit in those days was like trying to repair a nuclear reactor with a stone axe: you had to back up everything before trying because you were almost guaranteed a system crash afterwards.

You needed to use it, however, because the Mac couldn't multitask very well. It wasn't bad at doing one thing well, but try and open up another application and it slowed right down or just hung.

Sad-macAnd while we're on the topic of system crashes, there's the 'Sad Mac' feature. When the system went down, taking the day's work with it, it displayed a little sad face and played you the noise of a car crash. Hardly informative to say the least.

The problem is that Apple had decided that consumers were stupid and shouldn't be allowed to actually get into the software to change things. That was an Apple engineer's job and it should be made as hard as possible for anyone else. It's an attitude that has persisted for years.

In the interest of fairness I have to say that this problem has now been largely fixed with the introduction of OS X. At last Mac users have a relatively open operating system that's flexible and functional. Too bad it took 20 odd years to come about, but there you go. However, that still leaves the problem of the hardware.

Hardware
In many ways Mac hardware has taken the opposite course to its software: starting out well and getting progressively worse.

The original Macs were well built and functional in comparison with the rest of the PC industry. Sure there were problems, but poor manufacturing bedevilled the industry for many years.

Apple certainly had a sense of humour about technical problems. Early Macs had a problem with poorly-seated memory cards that that the company advised, in all seriousness, could be remedied by dropping the computer from a height of six inches to reseat them. This actually worked most of the time.

But Macs from the beginning were much harder to upgrade than PC systems. Sure, with the earlier versions you could upgrade the memory, but you had better be sure of what you were doing otherwise you'd fry the system. As for upgrading its low performance processors, forget it.

Not surprisingly customers complained and Apple did actually listen - for a while. The Mac II had expansion slots, a major step forward, but Apple still held onto the right to invalidate your warranty if you used third-party parts so that it could hang on to its monopoly, a policy that briefly changed in the 1990s before Apple returned to the bad old ways on its consumer machines.

Thankfully, it did listen to its power users and the more high-end systems were upgradable. The G3 towers were an excellent example of what could have been done. But the bad taste in the mouth lingers.

This lack of openness on the Apple platform was and is highly annoying. Apple kit is expensive and, when you can get it upgraded, it costs an arm and a leg to do so. Even now the computers are shockingly overpriced for what they are. You get what you pay for, Apple fans say, but that's no good if you're trying to get more people to benefit from owning computers.

Networking
Apple Macs have, until comparatively recently, been really bad machines to run on a network. Nearly a decade ago I was freelancing in an office that had just bought the new iMac. At first glance it didn't seem too bad. Yes, the operating system was still very tech-unfriendly but the system itself looked great and the lack of floppy drive wasn't too irritating.

But the networking was. The poor IT administrator was in her twenties but some evenings after work she'd look twice her age because of the problems of trying to network machines that weren't properly supported for the task. I sympathised over a few beers, and asked why she hadn't recommended a PC-based system.

"I did," she said grimly. "But the managing director wanted iMacs because they looked pretty and he wanted to appear cutting edge. As soon as I can get another job I'm out of here."

Thankfully these problems have now been largely fixed, but there's a reason why so few offices have Apple networks: systems administrators, like elephants, have long memories.

Smugness
One of the key reasons I hate Macs are their users. There's a certain kind of smug, snooty Apple user that makes me want to reach for the EMP cannon. Apple's fan base bears more resemblance to cults like Scientology than many would like to admit.

These people think that, because they paid vast wodges of cash for a machine, it must be better, and who buy into the whole advertising campaign malarkey that Apple has fed them, from the 1984 advert to assuming that they are 'Thinking Different'.

I urge those outraged by this to read Neal Stephenson's excellent essay In the Beginning ... was the Command Line, which skewers this issue better than I can.

This kind of Apple user thinks they are being a rebel by using a Mac, and are sticking it to Bill Gates. This ranges from the slightly annoying (abbreviating Microsoft to M$) to the utterly childish (Windoze etc).

Say what you like about Microsoft, but the company only wants to control all the software in the world. Apple wants to control the hardware, the software and anything else it can lay its hands on.

Another screed from this crowd is that Apple must be better because it doesn't get hit by malware. Macs are perfectly susceptible to malware as it turns out, but no-one is bothered to write it for them. Why would a profit-minded criminal try and infect only seven per cent of computers, when he could reach 90 per cent instead?

Now, I can explain all this till I'm blue in the face and the Apple fans just look at me pityingly and say: 'You just don’t get it,' usually adding the word 'Man' at the end. Either that or I'm accused of being a paid Microsoft stooge. But the fact is, I do get it.

And finally ...
Now, you may be under the impression that I'm hideously biased about Apple and shouldn't be allowed to carry on writing about them. You'd be wrong, although I do voluntarily ban myself from reviewing their products.

Actually, I think that a lot of what Apple does is great. The original idea behind the Apple computer did more to kick-start the industry in the 1970s than any other invention, and the Mac, for all its faults, created the desktop publishing industry that has employed me for nearly two decades.

When it comes to designing hardware that looks good and is easy for ordinary people to use the company is unbeatable. The iMac was and is a design classic, the iPhone and the iPod revolutionised their sectors (and I'm very happy with my iPod touch).

Steve Jobs, too, is one of the pioneers of the industry and has done much to change it. He's a far more interesting character than Bill Gates or Tim Berners-Lee, and a revolutionary thinker.

But, like many great people, Jobs is sometimes blind to other viewpoints. Had he played his cards right Apple would now be the de facto standard and Steve Ballmer would be a sales manager at a low level software company struggling to pay the mortgage.

A lot of Mac products were good, as our top 10 list will show, but when I look at a Mac I can't help but feel that they could have been so much better.

Do you agree?

Print this page
Save to disk
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093