iGay

[Maes]

The definitive proof macs and Apple are gay

iGay.

Me, as far as ass-blasting action goes, I think I'll just stick to Doom and Cybies, thank you very much.

[Mr. T]

I think that is only proof that you are gay for finding that site :P

[Maes]

There's even more solid evidence that Macs are gay.

[Texas Libra]

After taking a look at that third link, I'm wondering if that group is some kind of joke.

[SYS]

The rainbow flag with juxtaposition of the classic apple logo is something I'd have never thought of. That forum is pretty whack. It's all like, "As fundamentalist Christians we must spend all our time seeking out all that is gay, so that we may know what is gay, so that we avoid becoming gay, by being able to readily identify all that is gay, and if you know that something is gay, then you are effectively gay in the eyes of the lord!"

[GreyGhost]

Texas Libra said:

After taking a look at that third link, I'm wondering if that group is some kind of joke.

With an online gift shop like this, could it be anything but a joke. ;-)

[david_a]

Landover Baptist is a well-known troll site.

[Clonehunter]

Wow, Apple is Gay...

I can't wait for the Apple commercial the Forum is advertising :P

[kristus]

Texas Libra said:

After taking a look at that third link, I'm wondering if that group is some kind of joke.

Much like the people who use Macs are. :p

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5858/macfagtest.jpg
Heh, where is the actual Mac computer in this shot?

[Mr. Freeze]

SLOW DOWN FOR A MINUTE SON

Maes, how the hell did you find this?

[deathbringer]

apple-perceived-as-gay+friendly-samsung-not

*Buys Samsung everything*

Actually i wouldn't touch anything Apple with a shitty stick anyway JUST because of how Apple users atc.

NB: Not that shitty stick.

[Sharessa]

Well, I know Hobbs is a fan of OSX, so...

[destx]

People who question the sexuality of others just because they use True Computing Machines have minuscule penises. You peons are just jealous because you can't afford the Superior Apple Macintosh Computer System.


tl;dr: windoze is for pindick fagits

[Aliotroph?]

I have both. I also have Linux. I win.

[Gez]

kristus said:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5858/macfagtest.jpg
Heh, where is the actual Mac computer in this shot?

Here.

[entryway]

http://s.lurkmore.ru/images/9/9d/Applemouse.jpg

[printz]

W/e. You can just use a normal mouse, as the buttons and the wheel are supported.

[Maes]

printz said:

W/e. You can just use a normal mouse, as the buttons and the wheel are supported.

Then why don't they ship them with one? ;-)

Oh and more evidence. If you want to change your sexual orientation to gay, start with buying a Mac. That is, if you prefer the effeminate, metrosexual, polished kind of gay.

If on the other hand you prefer big, hairy men with unwashed beards, go with Linux, and hope that RMS's dick tastes "better" than Steve Jobs's. Better as in "more masculine" and musky, of course.

And as for the iPad...

[Gez]

Maes said:

If on the other hand you prefer big, hairy men with unwashed beards, go with Linux, and hope that RMS's dick tastes "better" than Steve Jobs's. Better as in "more masculine" and musky, of course.[/url]

The real RMS-asslickers go for the HURD, though. Or is it still vaporware?

[Maes]

Gez said:

The real RMS-asslickers go for the HURD, though. Or is it still vaporware?

Sadly, no. And I admit having watched Revolution OS. Enlightening and sad at the same time.

destx said:

Superior Apple Macintosh Computer System.

Superior in what? The underpowered and overpriced hardware that was owned by the Amiga since 1985 in its own field (graphics and TV production)?

The shitty "cooperative multitasking" OS written in Pascal which was owned by AmigaOS and later on even Windows 95, up to OS 9?

Maybe it was the apps and pulling the right strings with the right people...no other way they could get life-long loyal supporters that apparently disregard their own pockets. Since 1984, too.

I would give Macs some leeway if at least their zealots acknowledged that they were not always the hot stuff they are cracked up to be, and that today they are nothing more than an IBM PC compatible with a different OS, which makes it even more pointless paying a premium for them. But no, that 10% of fanatic Mac users are sworn in for life. This, I don' "get".

And somehow they managed to apply that same shitty philosophy of overpriced & underperforming to the iPod, the iPhone and now the iPad. It's amazing.

P.S. and they are gay, too.

[John Smith]

Danarchy said:

Well, I know Hobbs is a fan of OSX, so...

Not that I'm hobbs or anything, but I haven't used anything but Windows 7 for, uh, a while. OS X lives on my macbook so I can reinstall windows more easily if I need to.

[printz]

Maes said:

Mac rant

Well maybe yeah, but look here for example: OSX applications are single files, and those single files are exactly the executables. All you have to do is extract them. On the other hand, Windows programs still use installation procedures.

I'm mainly a Win7 user now though, because it would take resources and lookup to move on to another OS... and I prefer Windows's more colourful interface anyway, and likely yeah, I probably can't afford a Mac desktop, and such computers are not as common as PCs around here anyway.

Some of you are probably calling Apple products gay because of their appearance. But I find it real practical, especially concerning Macbooks, which seem much easier and faster to manipulate than those ugly PC laptops.

[destx]

Maes said:

A bunch of shit that hasn't been relevant for 15+ years

Step out of the 90s dude, Amiga is dead and it isn't coming back (as much as I would like it to ;_; ).

I would give Macs some leeway if at least their zealots acknowledged that they were not always the hot stuff they are cracked up to be, and that today they are nothing more than an IBM PC compatible with a different OS.

PROTIP: Zealots of all kinds are fucking morons. Most (intelligent) people who use macs realise that they are paying a premium and they are happy with that. They usually have a resason for it, maybe they don't want to support microsoft, maybe they just like the pretty hardware. Not everybody has to have the OMG DUAL OCTOHEXACORE CORE i20 BUT DONT PUT IT ON THE CARPET OR IT WILL MELT IT AND SET YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE $100 home-built box. Or the mid-priced HP computer made of straw.

And somehow they managed to apply that same shitty philosophy of overpriced & underperforming to the iPod, the iPhone and now the iPad. It's amazing.

well it worked for nintendo. twice.


And yes.

Macs are gay.

GAY FOR YOU

[Mr. T]

Gez said:

Here.

Woah! I thought the end was awesome. The barber obviously went to the US and KILLED the guy who reverse-scammed him!

[Maes]

printz said:

Well maybe yeah, but look here for example: OSX applications are single files, and those single files are exactly the executables. All you have to do is extract them. On the other hand, Windows programs still use installation procedures.

Are they single files even after installation? Do they just stay where you download/copy them and always run from a single file? Where do the user setting go? Are they NEVER supposed to be installed in the user's directories? What if there are data files? Are they always embedded as a common practice?

Most unix-based OSes, including OSX, notoriously have a complex dependency tree and/or require building apps from source, unless OSX distributors smarted up compared to Linux and only distribute precompiled, statically linked, single-piece binaries.

In any case, Windows has had single-file installers (.msi) for some time now, and it's possible to build statically linked, stand-alone .exes with many compilers (Delphi comes to mind, but there are others), at least if you don't use certain libraries that cannot be linked that way.

In any case, even if single-file applications (really? 1 GB single file applications?) ARE the praxis on Macs, there's still the thorny issue of binary compatibility, in both directions.

I can run Windows 1.0 apps directly on 32-bit XP, while Macs went through two architectural changes to begin with, and binary compatibility was NOT a primary design concern even between successive Mac OS classic releases (not that anyone would want to run Mac Classic applications directly on their desktop anymore.....and yeah with virtualization and all this came to be mooter than e.g. 5 or 10 years ago). Forward compatibility has always been exactly zero though, with stopgaps such as "fat binaries" with dual 68k/PPC and then PPC/Intel code.

printz said:

I probably can't afford a Mac desktop, and such computers are not as common as PCs around here anyway.

Exactly. An IBM PC + MAC OS = MAC. No magic mac hardware that "just works" anymore, baby. Not even "Apple makes the hardware and the software" anymore, baby. Too unix like for my taste too...not even a feeling of uniqueness anymore. Less money in your pocket too...what's left, seriously?

printz said:

Some of you are probably calling Apple products gay because of their appearance.

More because of their marketing model. Macs are like buying that ridiculously overpriced wool lint remover from an infomercial "offer" for "just" $59.99 instead of walking to your neighborhood's super market and getting it for $3.99. Which is OK if you are like, 90 years old and can't actually walk or even drive to the mall yourself.

[Bank]

Macs are computers for stupid people, not gay people.

[grubber]

Maes said:

Are they single files even after installation? Do they just stay where you download/copy them and always run from a single file? Where do the user setting go? Are they NEVER supposed to be installed in the user's directories? What if there are data files? Are they always embedded as a common practice?

Actually they're "bundles", which are directories that look like a single file in the file manager. The user settings go probably somewhere in the Library directory inside your home directory. AFAIK you can "install" them wherever you want, just by moving the bundle. (But I'm not a Mac user, so I'm not completely sure.)

Maes said:

Most unix-based OSes, including OSX, notoriously have a complex dependency tree and/or require building apps from source, unless OSX distributors smarted up compared to Linux and only distribute precompiled, statically linked, single-piece binaries.

AFAIK that's not a problem in OS X. Yes, it's certified UNIX, but that doesn't mean it's like any other *nix OS. There's only one "distro", so maintaining binary compatibility isn't so difficult, as opposed to e.g. Linux, where there are hundreds of distros, each with different combinations of library versions and no desire to be binary compatible with each other.

Maes said:

In any case, Windows has had single-file installers (.msi) for some time now, and it's possible to build statically linked, stand-alone .exes with many compilers (Delphi comes to mind, but there are others), at least if you don't use certain libraries that cannot be linked that way.

That's not a Windows-specific feature. Single-file installers with statically linked binaries can be done in any OS.

[Maes]

Grubber said:

That's not a Windows-specific feature. Single-file installers with statically linked binaries can be done in any OS.

Exactly. So what makes OS X so special in that respect? You can also use special wrappers around windows apps to force them so "slurp up" any external resources and data files inside a sealed container file and make one big-ass exe if so you wish, but it's very seldom used.

In practice, I've only seen certain shareware/freeware programs being distributed in one installer-free, single-file, run-anywhere chunk (again, Delphi has special facilities for creating such apps). You must really go back to the DOS era to see this being common praxis.

[D_GARG]

I agree macs are boring and windows is sorta best but is still boogy buggy duggy.

HELL YEA Im on a hellish spree, had 2 threads sent to hell today.(school IS boring on mondays)

I will probably have this reply deleted beacuse of mentioning this.

any way, mac sucks and video games.

[Maes]

D_GARG said:

any way, mac sucks and video games.

Macs were about as exciting as a TDI Pinnacle 68000 or a Sparcstation for what regarded gaming, up to the OS IX era.

And today they're as good as a unix-based system with OpenGL-only support can be. Close, but no cigar.