Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

The Godfather · Dec 28, 2011, 07:55 PM

Not even a resurrected Steve Jobs could make a worthy Prius challenger ever.
The consistent 50MPG everywhere and the 100+ lb battery are more fun to drive than your mom.
Get them at $16k in Hertz Rent to Buy

Wiskedjak · Dec 28, 2011, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Because they made a few dozen prototypes?

I'm pretty confident in saying that Apple has made that many 7" iPads to tinker with, but that doesn't mean they'll ever see the light of day as a consumer device.

Perhaps. On the other hand, perhaps HP made enough to fire-sale them ...
HP TouchPad Go: Will New Tablet Computer Go on Sale for $99? [VIDEO] - International Business Times

Shaddim · Dec 29, 2011, 02:09 AM

They would need to begin production with the intention of selling them at a hefty loss. HP is crazy, but I don't believe they're suicidal. They dumped all the 10" Touchpads because they were either already in the channel or the parts were stockpiled at the OEM, this doesn't seem to be the case with the Go.

Waragainstsleep · Dec 29, 2011, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Gasoline weighs just over 6 pounds per gallon. My Civic has a 12 gallon tank, so when full the fuel load weighs roughly 72 pounds. The tank on my car is mounted just aft of the rear axles and very low, yet there is still a significant and noticeable difference in handling between pulling into the gas station with an empty tank and leaving with a full tank. I know for a fact that there are very few baffles in my gas tank, so there isn't much to keep a partly full tank from sloshing around in a hard corner.

The battery pack on a Prius weighs 118 pounds according to the Wikipedia article on the car, and that battery pack is mounted ABOVE and forward of the rear axles. I think this is where the handling issue comes from: the weight of the batteries is too high and mounted in an inappropriately forward location.

For some reason I thought you meant the fuel sloshing around rather than just the weight of it which would obviously make a difference.

Waragainstsleep · Dec 29, 2011, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Not even a resurrected Steve Jobs could make a worthy Prius challenger ever.
The consistent 50MPG everywhere and the 100+ lb battery are more fun to drive than your mom.
Get them at $16k in Hertz Rent to Buy

You know Steve would just lock the engineers in a workshop guarded by lions and refuse to let them out until they hit 80mpg with a 60lb battery pack.

mattyb · Dec 31, 2011, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

The battery pack on a Prius weighs 118 pounds according to the Wikipedia article on the car, and that battery pack is mounted ABOVE and forward of the rear axles. I think this is where the handling issue comes from: the weight of the batteries is too high and mounted in an inappropriately forward location.

Having such a large mass forward of the rear axles is good engineering design, if the mass was behind, then the backend would tend to swing out when going around bends. Some purists say that the Porsche design is unstable for such a high-performance car.

The disadvantage of the rear engine configuration, is that placing the engine outside the wheelbase can create problems for car handling[citation needed]as, when the car begins to slide on a corner, the end of the car will tend to want to swing wide and overtake the front — especially under braking. This tendency is referred to as oversteer and creates potential safety issues both for ordinary drivers, and even in racing applications. There are also occasions where expert drivers find such behavior desirable in drifting[citation needed], a motorsport based on intentional oversteer. Details on the handling characteristics of rear-engined cars were prominently featured in the 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed.

From our beloved Wikipedia.

Spheric Harlot · Dec 31, 2011, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by mattyb

Having such a large mass forward of the rear axles is good engineering design, if the mass was behind, then the backend would tend to swing out when going around bends. Some purists say that the Porsche design is unstable for such a high-performance car.

It is my understanding (limited though it may be in subjects automotive) that this is what Porsche drivers call "fun".

andi*pandi · Dec 31, 2011, 02:21 PM

I get the same result with sloshy shock absorbers. Wheeeee!

imitchellg5 · Dec 31, 2011, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

It is my understanding (limited though it may be in subjects automotive) that this is what Porsche drivers call "fun".

Because putting the horse after the carriage makes a lot of sense to Porsche drivers.

Spheric Harlot · Dec 31, 2011, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Because putting the horse after the carriage makes a lot of sense to Porsche drivers.

I'm not one to judge, but it would seem that these cars have been inherently *fun*, with no change to the basic concept, for about fifty years, so they must be doing something right, no?

imitchellg5 · Dec 31, 2011, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

I'm not one to judge, but it would seem that these cars have been inherently *fun*, with no change to the basic concept, for about fifty years, so they must be doing something right, no?

No. Read old Road & Track reviews of 911s from the 70s-90s and journalists almost feared the 911 until the 996 due to inherent snap oversteer. Even if you read reviews of the new 991, reviewers are saying that it's the first generation of 911 to nearly completely overcome having the engine in the back. Rear-engined cars also struggle with lift at the nose at high speeds.

In terms of being inherently fun, I'd say the Boxster/Cayman use the correct formula for engine placement (though not inherently fun to work on, at all).

Spheric Harlot · Dec 31, 2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

No. Read old Road & Track reviews of 911s from the 70s-90s and journalists almost feared the 911 until the 996 due to inherent snap oversteer. Even if you read reviews of the new 991, reviewers are saying that it's the first generation of 911 to nearly completely overcome having the engine in the back. Rear-engined cars also struggle with lift at the nose at high speeds.

Like I said, I'm not one to judge, but I was under the impression that drifting was part of the fun of driving a Porsche. It requires being able to drive, naturally.

imitchellg5 · Dec 31, 2011, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Like I said, I'm not one to judge, but I was under the impression that drifting was part of the fun of driving a Porsche. It requires being able to drive, naturally.

There's a difference between drifting and oversteer itself. Drifting is a result of oversteer, but oversteer, especially snap oversteer, isn't necessarily what you'd like as a driver. If you're driving a well-sorted front engined RWD car, such as Shaddim's M3, and you enter a corner, the front will begin to progressively understeer. A good driver will then use the throttle to counter the understeer with oversteer, guiding the car through the corner in a drift (a bad one without any stones will let the car understeer itself off the road). An older 911 would enter the corner, begin to understeer, and then the back would lose grip as well, with no driver provocation, due to the weight being carried behind the rear axle. If you've ever had to brake hard driving a normal car while towing a trailer, it's a similar effect. You can see this with a lot of older rally footage. Under heavy braking, in a tight (more than 180˚ turn), it looks almost as if the driver has pulled the handbrake, as he would in a front-engined car, but he hasn't. The driver is using the light nose of the car to pivot the rear around. Most of the time in older 911s, this occurs almost as instantaneously as lifting off the throttle to make a mid-corner correction.

Eug · Jan 1, 2012, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Because they made a few dozen prototypes?

I'm pretty confident in saying that Apple has made that many 7" iPads to tinker with, but that doesn't mean they'll ever see the light of day as a consumer device.

Perhaps, but then again... The 12" Powerbook. The 11" Air. The iPod shuffle. Etc.

Apple tends to milk a size class of product to death, and then after Apple apologists repeatedly say different size classes suck, Apple introduces one and proclaims it as the second coming of Jobs.

imitchellg5 · Jan 1, 2012, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Perhaps, but then again... The 12" Powerbook. The 11" Air. The iPod shuffle. Etc.

Apple tends to milk a size class of product to death, and then after Apple apologists repeatedly say different size classes suck, Apple introduces one and proclaims it as the second coming of Jobs.

Great point. In the case of the 11" Air, Steve ranted against netbooks only a couple months before the announcement. You know the 11" Air was well on the way.

Waragainstsleep · Jan 1, 2012, 09:43 AM

Yes and no.

Personally I would never buy any 11" laptop, its just too small.
Netbooks were supposed to be cheap machines to do the basics on the net. Surf, email Youtube, play a few tunes. Things that every new laptop do without breaking a sweat. The problem was that the sucked at what they were supposed to do. Underpowered for watching movies with sucky battery life and worst of all they had tiny, poor screens to read web pages on. So jobs was kind of right and as the classic joke says the 11" Air fixed the cheap part but it did at least have better battery and more power that many netbooks.

What people didn't spot about netbooks was that the rest of the PC industry was employing some reality distortion of their own. While they were marketed as cheap ways to access the web, what they really did was stop the budget PC notebook market from collapsing altogether. Before the netbook, Dell were selling budget laptops for £150 +VAT. These were 15" units offered to business users. They weren't high spec but they didn't need to be to run IE and Office. The netbook allowed everyone to jack the prices back up again. 10-12" netbooks appeared and they were ~£300 "because they are so small and extra portable", then the 15" units went back up to around £400 "because they are bigger". Thats roughly where they've stayed ever since.

Spheric Harlot · Jan 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

There's a difference between drifting and oversteer itself. Drifting is a result of oversteer, but oversteer, especially snap oversteer, isn't necessarily what you'd like as a driver.
[...]
You can see this with a lot of older rally footage. Under heavy braking, in a tight (more than 180˚ turn), it looks almost as if the driver has pulled the handbrake, as he would in a front-engined car, but he hasn't. The driver is using the light nose of the car to pivot the rear around. Most of the time in older 911s, this occurs almost as instantaneously as lifting off the throttle to make a mid-corner correction.

Thanks for the explanation!

ghporter · Jan 1, 2012, 01:17 PM

Yeah, thanks! I had to read through the explanation about three times to get it all to make sense, but now I think I have a clue.

Back in the 80s, I did "car phone" (pre cellular phone systems) installations, and a test drive is required to make sure everything works. I HATED driving 911s as much as I loved driving 924s and 944s. Now I know why.

(1983 Mercedes Turbo Diesels are my personal choice for "using a car as punishment," by the way, with the condition that the driver must spend 50% or more time trying to get onto a busy main road from a cross street with a stop sign.

)

Shaddim · Jan 2, 2012, 12:22 AM

The 911 is... freaky. I drove a 996 turbo for an evening to get the feel of it, and I was actually very impressed, right up until the moment I broke traction on a switchback and almost put the car into a rock wall at ~50mph. It was, "good, good, good, good, OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO DIE!"

No thanks, no beetle for me. The one thing that somewhat bothers me about the Gallardo is that it has no oversteer or understeer. It's just about perfectly neutral, due to it's slick-ass AWD system, and sometimes that can get boring.

Doofy · Jan 2, 2012, 12:44 AM

One steers a 911 with one's right foot. If one is not a pussy, one intentionally unsticks the rear wheels whilst in a corner in order to make use of the exceptional handling characteristics.

Fazination - YouTube

Doofy · Jan 2, 2012, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Like I said, I'm not one to judge, but I was under the impression that drifting was part of the fun of driving a Porsche. It requires being able to drive, naturally.

Completely correct.

And now they've killed the fun so that the pussies at Road and Track can drive them without whining.

Shaddim · Jan 2, 2012, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

One steers a 911 with one's right foot. If one is not a pussy, one intentionally unsticks the rear wheels whilst in a corner in order to make use of the exceptional handling characteristics.

Fazination - YouTube

He wouldn't have to drive so slowly if he had a better car.

Shaddim · Jan 2, 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Completely correct.

And now they've killed the fun so that the pussies at Road and Track can drive them without whining.

You could get a Ford GTX1 if you really want drifting, and 800+bhp.

Waragainstsleep · Jan 2, 2012, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

You could get a Ford GTX1 if you really want drifting, and 800+bhp.

Generally we europeans don't buy american cars when we want a car for its handling. We have corners over here you see.

Plus anyone who watches Top Gear UK knows those Ford GTs can't do more than half a mile in a straight line before they break down.

ghporter · Jan 2, 2012, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

One steers a 911 with one's right foot. If one is not a pussy, one intentionally unsticks the rear wheels whilst in a corner in order to make use of the exceptional handling characteristics.

Fazination - YouTube

One does this when a) one has far more driving experience than I did at the time, and b) when one KNOWS this sort of thing is going to happen. It's not the sort of thing one should spring on a young driver without a lot of experience (especially one who desperately wants to NOT wreck the customer's car while working).

Today, I think I would enjoy the 911 if I had a nice broad area completely to myself so I could get used to these characteristics, sort of like when I started learning "starting up a hill from a dead stop with a manual transmission" way back in the day. But when I got the chance to drive 911s I had all of 3 years experience driving a manual, almost all of which was in a 1980 Honda Civic. Kinda different, right?

Doofy · Jan 2, 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

He wouldn't have to drive so slowly if he had a better car.

It's not bad for mid '80s, no? What with being the Veyron of its day and all.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

You could get a Ford GTX1 if you really want drifting, and 800+bhp.

Drifting in a mid-engine? Sorry but no. Just no. And again no.

I don't know America... ...you've had "handling" explained to you many times before, and yet even the brightest amongst you defaults back to headline BHP figures and patriotism!

Doofy · Jan 2, 2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

One does this when a) one has far more driving experience than I did at the time, and b) when one KNOWS this sort of thing is going to happen. It's not the sort of thing one should spring on a young driver without a lot of experience (especially one who desperately wants to NOT wreck the customer's car while working).

Today, I think I would enjoy the 911 if I had a nice broad area completely to myself so I could get used to these characteristics, sort of like when I started learning "starting up a hill from a dead stop with a manual transmission" way back in the day. But when I got the chance to drive 911s I had all of 3 years experience driving a manual, almost all of which was in a 1980 Honda Civic. Kinda different, right?

I'll let you off.

The normally aspirated models weren't that bad, but the Turbo was a vicious little beast. Turn, gas, turn, lag, turn, lag, turn, turbo, "oh crap", less gas, unstick, hedge. So the trick was to make sure the turbo was spooled up before you hit the corner.

imitchellg5 · Jan 2, 2012, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

The 911 is... freaky. I drove a 996 turbo for an evening to get the feel of it, and I was actually very impressed, right up until the moment I broke traction on a switchback and almost put the car into a rock wall at ~50mph. It was, "good, good, good, good, OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO DIE!"

No thanks, no beetle for me. The one thing that somewhat bothers me about the Gallardo is that it has no oversteer or understeer. It's just about perfectly neutral, due to it's slick-ass AWD system, and sometimes that can get boring.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

My grandfather has a 997 Carrera S, and on rougher patches of I5, you can still feel the nose float around. Not the most confident feeling at 75 mph in the rain.

Doofy · Jan 2, 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

My grandfather has a 997 Carrera S, and on rougher patches of I5, you can still feel the nose float around. Not the most confident feeling at 75 mph in the rain.

A 997 ?
75 MPH?

Stick to the bus dude!

Shaddim · Jan 2, 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Generally we europeans don't buy american cars when we want a car for its handling. We have corners over here you see.

Plus anyone who watches Top Gear UK knows those Ford GTs can't do more than half a mile in a straight line before they break down.

The GTX1 suspension, and a large part of the chassis, was designed by Lotus. Also, Clarkson got a lemon, the Ford GT is actually reliable compared to most other supercars.

Shaddim · Jan 2, 2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's not bad for mid '80s, no? What with being the Veyron of its day and all.

I would call the 959 the Veyron of that era, it was the king until the McLaren F1 (which will always be the greatest car ever made).

Drifting in a mid-engine? Sorry but no. Just no. And again no.

I don't know America... ...you've had "handling" explained to you many times before, and yet even the brightest amongst you defaults back to headline BHP figures and patriotism!

We can make good handling cars, like the Z06, most over here just don't care, however.

and then there's Mosler and Saleen, who will still make a S7 TT for you if you ask nicely (and give them $750k).

Doofy · Jan 2, 2012, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I would call the 959 the Veyron of that era, it was the king until the McLaren F1 (which will always be the greatest car ever made).

It's a Ruf 911, not a Porsche 911 - it's faster than a 959.
(Although the 959 is, IMO, one of the finest cars ever made. Try running a Veyron in the Dakar!

)

imitchellg5 · Jan 3, 2012, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

A 997 ?
75 MPH?

Stick to the bus dude!

There are cops every 5 miles on I5 these days and I don't wish to get pulled over and show the cop a title that isn't in my name or have the same last name while driving a $120k car.

Doofy · Jan 3, 2012, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

There are cops every 5 miles on I5 these days and I don't wish to get pulled over and show the cop a title that isn't in my name or have the same last name while driving a $120k car.

No, I mean that if you're crapping out at the handling of a 997 at 75 MPH, you'd probably be better sticking to Hondas and the like. Or the bus. They'd got the handling tamed by the time the 993 was released.

imitchellg5 · Jan 3, 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, I mean that if you're crapping out at the handling of a 997 at 75 MPH, you'd probably be better sticking to Hondas and the like. Or the bus. They'd got the handling tamed by the time the 993 was released.

This coming from Mr. All-the-Colonists-Care-About-is-Speed-and-Horsepower?

I5 through the Seattle/Tacoma area is essentially as rough as most dirt roads. Your car goes into this annoying up and down yawing motion no matter what you're driving. In a 911, it makes the nose feel really light. Which, as I said, when you're driving in the rain, with summer tires, doesn't make you feel the most confident of drivers. I prefer cars that make you feel like a hero, not the villain, such as the GTI, E46 M3, etc.

Eug · Jan 3, 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Personally I would never buy any 11" laptop, its just too small.

I have an 11" laptop. My main issue with it as a laptop is that the pixel density is high. It has the same resolution as the 11" Air, which is 1368x768. I'd prefer 1280x720, which would bring it from 135 ppi to 126 ppi, which would be very similar to the 13" Air. The 13" Air has a relatively decent pixel density at 128, although I currently use a 13" MacBook Pro at 113 ppi. Other than its high pixel density though I think my 11" laptop is great. I bring it with me when I know I will only be using it intermittently. If I need to do more heavy duty lifting, I bring my 13" MacBook Pro.

However, LOTS of people are just fine with the pixel density of the 11" Air, which, along with its extremely small size and weight, decent CPU, keyboard, and OS, is why it is so popular. In fact, I'd guess if I were a lot younger, I'd also have no problem with the high pixel density.

Netbooks were supposed to be cheap machines to do the basics on the net. Surf, email Youtube, play a few tunes. Things that every new laptop do without breaking a sweat. The problem was that the sucked at what they were supposed to do. Underpowered for watching movies with sucky battery life and worst of all they had tiny, poor screens to read web pages on. So jobs was kind of right and as the classic joke says the 11" Air fixed the cheap part but it did at least have better battery and more power that many netbooks.

The number one problem with the prior netbooks was the undersized keyboard and trackpad. The number two problem was the CPU power. The number three problem was the OS. However, for years before the 11" Air came out, I argued that Apple could release an 11" laptop with full-sized keyboard, decent sized trackpad, and decent CPU, with a full version of OS X. In 2010, they released just that, although it was slightly larger at 11.6".

As far as I was concerned, it was a logical evolution for laptops. The PC makers just got it wrong with the undersized input devices, slow Atom CPUs, and Windows 7 Starter. That said, there were a couple of PC netbooks that got it right before the 11" Air came out. In fact, I own a PC 11.6" netbook, but with a decent CPU and full-sized keyboard. It cost me $399, and came with Windows 7 Home, as well as a Pentium SU4100 (a Core 2 Duo class CPU). However, I did swap in an SSD to give it an OS speed boost. Its battery life is way better than the 11" Air, but then again it's thicker than the 11" Air too with a discrete laptop drive, user replaceable memory, and a bigger battery.

The point here is that while 11" Air is not appropriate for some people, and overall most might prefer a 13" Air or Pro, that doesn't mean the 11" is useless. Quite the contrary, it seems to be quite the popular product for Apple in fact, just like the 12" PowerBook was. The only reason I owned the 15" TiBook was because I bought it two months before the 12" PowerBook came out.

The 12" PowerBook was my favourite PPC laptop of all time.

What does this mean for iPads? I think Apple will milk the 10" iPad for some time, but then will seriously consider releasing a 7" or 8" unit.

Spheric Harlot · Jan 3, 2012, 02:57 PM

Another thread title change FTW!

Also, hello Doofy! I had a feeling I would draw you out of the woodwork.
Thanks for confirming that the very things that make the 911 series terrible cars are what makes them such fun — provided you know them well and are looking for just that experience.

Waragainstsleep · Jan 3, 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

The point here is that while 11" Air is not appropriate for some people, and overall most might prefer a 13" Air or Pro, that doesn't mean the 11" is useless. Quite the contrary, it seems to be quite the popular product for Apple in fact, just like the 12" PowerBook was.

The Air isn't useless, with Thunderbolt and Apple TV its a perfect desktop replacement for many who never needed the power of an iMac with added ultra-portability. As a computing experience by itself, its a compromise. I wouldn't want to use one to read or write for long periods except on a train or a plane perhaps.

As for its popularity, its difficult to be objective about how that relates to only the feature set. Its the cheapest Apple laptop there is and many people will buy it for that reason alone.

Shaddim · Jan 3, 2012, 03:55 PM

I feel proud of the title change. This is one of the only threads keeping the Lounge alive these days.

Eug · 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

The Air isn't useless, with Thunderbolt and Apple TV its a perfect desktop replacement for many who never needed the power of an iMac with added ultra-portability. As a computing experience by itself, its a compromise. I wouldn't want to use one to read or write for long periods except on a train or a plane perhaps.

Of course it's a compromise. Laptops by their very nature are a compromise.

However, as far as desktop replacements go, the Pros are better suited for that though IMO. The Airs are about improved portability. I will agree though that the new Airs are far better than the previous ones. Personally I was underwhelmed with the first 13" Air.

To put it another way, I would be far more likely to buy an 11" Air in 2012 than I would have been to buy a 13" Air in early 2008.

As for its popularity, its difficult to be objective about how that relates to only the feature set. Its the cheapest Apple laptop there is and many people will buy it for that reason alone.

Indeed, price always matters, regardless of what some in this thread try to claim.

I do think the 11" Air is a great little machine though. It'd be almost perfect for me if it had an option for a 1280x720 screen instead of the 1366x768.

imitchellg5 · Jan 3, 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I feel proud of the title change. This is one of the only threads keeping the Lounge alive these days.

Kindle Fire — A worthy hamstar replacement?

Eug · Jan 7, 2012, 08:10 PM

Drifting in a driverless Google Prius

Shaddim · Jan 7, 2012, 11:31 PM

They do seem to find creative ways of blowing sh*t tons of money.

Eug · Jan 19, 2012, 10:59 AM

Speaking of Google... Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich is getting good reviews.

Smartphones:
AnandTech - Samsung Galaxy Nexus & Ice Cream Sandwich Review
Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich review -- Engadget

Tablets:
Ice Cream Sandwich on the Transformer Prime review: first look | PC Pro blog
Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime Ice Cream Sandwich Update Review

The one thing people consistently complain about is Face Unlock, but I'm not surprised.

mduell · Jan 20, 2012, 12:39 AM

A4.0 ICS, the phone OS that took poorly behaved hardware buttons and made them virtual and exactly the same?

A real winner there.

Eug · Jan 20, 2012, 01:03 AM

Hey, Woz loves it so it can't be all bad...

Shaddim · Jan 20, 2012, 06:02 AM

I like ICS. It'll be really nice when they make it more stable, right now it's still too buggy for prime time.

The Godfather · Jan 20, 2012, 02:58 PM

Are IO$ users who **** on Android OS without even trying it slowly becoming the Winblow$ users of circa 2003? If so, at what stage of trollism have we sunk into?

Eug · Jan 20, 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Are IO$ users who **** on Android OS without even trying it slowly becoming the Winblow$ users of circa 2003? If so, at what stage of trollism have we sunk into?

Apple users (not individuals, but as a cohort) have always been trollish about other OSes. Back in 2002 I wondered if it was it was an inferiority complex because nobody used OS X, and now a decade later I wonder if it's a superiority complex cuz Apple dominates the world.

NB. I've been an OS X user since 2001.

Shaddim · Jan 20, 2012, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Are IO$ users who **** on Android OS without even trying it slowly becoming the Winblow$ users of circa 2003? If so, at what stage of trollism have we sunk into?

I use ICS, it's buggy.