MAC V PC

Apple products are not innovative.  The marketing is.  They are not the be all and end all.

Seriously at the end of the day if you were technically adept you would realize that you can run the OS on alot of other hardware.  You are paying for the style.  Thats it.  A hackintosh can be put together for a fraction of the cost.  Dual and tri boot setups can be easily achieved giving you the best of all worlds.

Some of the arguments I here are frankly retarded.  Mac's are more secure.  False.  System security is based on the user.  To think your system is secure is idiocy no matter what OS you use.  There is always zero day hacks available for most OS's.  These are holes within the system.  Fact is that hackers and people who use these for financial gain will cover the largest user base.  Seeing as Android is becoming fastly the most used OS you can bet that were gonna see more malware and hacks for this OS within the next few years,  just like the iphone/paypal debacle.

Macs are faster.  Then what?  Then your average £300 pcworld special laptop.  Of course they are.  Even though you are paying a premium for the hardware doesn't mean the actual hardware (especially on the laptop side) is rubbish.  But lets put it in context.  At this point £1700 would buy you an entry level 15 inch mac book pro.  For the same cost you can buy an Asus G73JW-3DE.  Now check the specs.  The Asus is far superior.   With twice the RAM and twice the HDD Size (and they are hybrid drives), graphics again are superior plus you get 3D capable.  The same goes for the desktop variations,  where a custom built rig will double the specs of the mac.  This is the premium you pay.  Then theres the simple fact that if anything goes wrong with your machine repairs and spares are far cheaper on the PC side.

Macs are more stable. For the average turn on and go user this is probably true.  This isn't down to the hardware,  its the operating system.. The only people who argue this point are people who do not understand how to configure a computer correctly.  So why are they even arguing this point.  I ran my Windows 7 machine for 3 weeks straight (and it is heavily overclocked) without any system instability.  Anyone who has been round to my gaff will testify my system gets a hammering 24/7.  The only time you will ever see a system instability is when I'm messing about with the overclock profile.  The fact is that most off the shelf laptops (especially from companies like Dell and HP/Compaq) are full of bloat ware and custom software that I think are core responsible components for slow systems and for instabilities.  I fixed a laptop recently with the new Dell dashboard which frankly was hampering the machine so much.  This isn't an operating system problem,  this is a manufacturer problem.  Mac users tend to forget that the OS and hardware are 2 different companies on an off the shelf PC.  This is a completely different argument then.  It becomes manufacturer of windows PC v's Mac.  If it was my custom built rig v's Mac then theres no comparison.  But thats the difference,  Mac users tend to need that "Just work" machine,  because they usually are technically in-adept.  Which shows my point,  why are you arguing in the first place.

Mac's are better for Video and Audio software.  False.  Due to apple's childish argument with Adobe alot of the software developed by adobe is now being opened to mass parallel processing utilising the GPU.  This means that Video and Image editing is faster with a CUDA enabled Nvidia GPU.  Yes thats right,  a good £200 graphics card in your system will make light work of editing,  and now a £1200 custom rig will beat a £2500 Mac Pro on these tasks.

I'm not saying Macs are bad, OSX is a great OS.  From the hardware side though they are style over substance.  If you are an Apple fanboy,  and think you are technically adept then you have to agree with these comments.  If you however are just trying to justify why you have overspent on your products because it's cool to like apple.  Step off now before I flying headbutt you.

Apple create nice looking stuff.  But on a whole the draconian DRM and overpriced hardware will continue  to make sure we continue to see fanboy's claiming to be technically minded and spout crap arguments to try and justify the purchases they made.  Fact is,  you bought it because you have limited technical ability, and too much money.  Thats why apple market to you.  Like shooting fish in a barrel.  Apple's new slogan should be "You want to be a Nerd,  buy apple" ... when really it should be "So you like to think you're a nerd,  but buying us show's you're not".

Stop arguing,  you'll be better off trying to convince me Jesus was a white guy from oxford.

Why you should never listen to Film critics

Seriously.  After the slew of absolutely slating reviews of Sucker Punch I just felt I had to say something about these so called, up there own arse twat stains.

Everything is subjective in art.  What one person loathes another person loves.  I watch alot of film,  and most people who personally know me will testify that I probably watch far too much.  I actually would probably bet my fucking balls on the fact that I probably watch more film then James King,  yes I loathe that twat, he's a fucking dick wad.

Anyway, back to the original point.  There are films that buy reviewers.  And there is also a rolling ball spectacle that happens.  Take for example a top film critic,  say the top 10 films critics of the world press,  New York Times, Empire etc.  If say 60% of those say "This film is shit" then every other b and c list critics will say "hey we gotta say it's shit or else people won't take us as serious film critics".  This happens time and time again.  It also works on the other side where 60% say its good and actually its a bag of week old monkey turds wrapped in old peoples disposable undergarments.

Case and point.  Autumn 1999.  Fight Club came out.  Nearly every review I read said,  "It's crap".  Fact is I think alot of the reviewers didn't understand the context.  Plus it's very difficult to condone against global corporatism when the film industry is funded and condones by it's nature this practice.  Anyway looking around it's very difficult to find actual reviews of the time.  As most reviewers ate there words with it being rated within the top 10 films of all times, most reviews were removed and replaced.  The only one I could find is this one

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,4267,102483,00.html

Well done the Guardian,  unfortunately you should of sacked Bradshaw.  I'd take Hitlers word over his any day.  This fucker gave watchmen 3 stars,  and the Hangover 4 stars.  If you rate the Hangover over Watchmen, then maybe you are the one that should of been labotomised in Sucker Punch.

Now I'm not saying Snyder's latest is brilliant.  I liked it.  Worth a watch.  I would say that but I'm no critic.  Watch it and make your own opinion.  Isn't that what all art is about.

(Can I also say that most reviewers rated the Hangover,  Where as my opinion of this film is that it was a pile of dog vomit resting on a freshly laid pig turd,  yet apparently it was so good they are revamping it in a foreign country,  I wish they had shot it for real and sent the fuckers, including the writers to fucking republic of Congo or some other war torn country in the hope they die horrifically, or at least captured and tortured for 10 years until they realize we aint paying for the fuckers release and just systematically execute the snivelling fuckwits)

Look some reviewers I love.  But you should always take any review with a pinch of salt and learn to make your own fucking judgement.  Show your IQ and stop being a sheep.