-
The appeal of a computer for me, is that I want to be productive so I can get off the computer as soon as possible.
This is where Apple fails, for me.
I simply am not as productive using an Apple computer than I am using a Linux machine. Nowhere near.
My current experiment is Apple hardware with Linux virtual machines... I get 90% Apple and then the last bit is where I am productive. But the nagging thought I've had, is why I'm spending 90% of my time in that last 10% that isn't Apple. It seems pointless to me, yes the Apple hardware is awesome but I end up having to fight against Apple to be able to have simple things like a tiling window manager (one keystroke, put my two windows side by side).
I'm going back to Thinkpad because of the software, not because of the hardware. I realise I am happy compromising the physical product a little but I'm not happy compromising the software environment.
To me, Apple = simplicity. But what that really means is that they've simplified the interfaces to such a degree that to perform any non-simplistic task actually takes far more effort.
Apple software is the Esperanto of computing... far fewer words, much simpler for everyone... but it takes a contortion to express any complex thought effectively.
You are reading a single comment by @Velocio and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Velocio
salad
The problem with alternatives for me is that I won't know my way around it, or if I want to understand something I'll have to ask someone very specific. It means learning a whole way of doing things and I'm not in any way interested in getting into computing for its own ends. I just want a simple, powerful, robust machine for producing work and realising ideas on. The appeal of Apple for me is the elegant coherence of the entire package, inside and out.