What is it about macbooks specifically that attracts toddlers

>>61037784
MacBook design is very streamlined, and macOS is intuitive and easy to use.

What is it about thinkpads specifically that attracts neckbeard NEETS so strongly?

File: 1359654183792.png (185KB, 580x323px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 580x323px

>>61037800
True. It's streamlined shape fits inside my anus extremely easily. Can't say I agree about macOS though, as I don't have eyes inside of my asshole, so I've never actually seen it.

>>61037800
>t. mactoddler

>>61037784
The fact that it's designed for people with a toddler's intelligence. Well on his/her way to becoming hipster trash.

What is it about /g/ specifically that attracts faggot OP's so strongly?

File: IMG_0072.jpg (45KB, 639x908px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 639x908px

>>61037784
It's stylistic, trendy, expensive... why do people buy Gucci slippers

>>61037803
you can buy a used one for $200 or less if you haggle

also, sage

>>61041956
>t. mactoddler

>>61041956
xXkek9000Xx

>>61042051
No thx i dont need that trash

>>61040869
This is exactly the post OP was baiting for. Wouldn't be surprised at all if samefagging.

>>61037833
Your anal cavity must be enormous.
What operating system do you use?

Some people that used to do everything Linux at work, and a lot in their free time when they were younger, now work 40+ hours a week and want to spend their time with family now. I meet plenty of them, still using Linux practically every day at work, are moving to a more stable OS for their own laptops because they simply don't have time anymore to unfuck their systems when they're geeking out.

And some of these toddlers actually like their smart dad's laptop.

>>61049637
>t. mactoddler

That's a baby, not a toddler.

>>61050578
r. iBaby

>>61050578
>t. macbaby

>>61047299
Not OP, but I stand by my post. Macs were full-featured, cutting edge computers. Now you can't use a USB device without a fucking dongle. Fuck the macToys that are on their way to retirement because of memePhone.

I hate the new Apple. Old Apple (~5 years ago) made good shit. Still have one of the last gen 17" MacBooks and a 12 core Mac Pro tower. Great fucking machines. You can swap everything in them and keep them running.

Nowadays, everything is just soldered into the motherboard and it's all USB C. Like...whut?

Macs are very good for some things, and in the work i do a lot of software is Mac only. Plus, most interfaces and devices i use do not need any drivers because Mac OS X had CoreAudio built on as the native driver. Plug and play, saves me so much fucking time.

That being said, i do also have Windows installed on the Macs because...sometimes i just need Windows too.

I think with Macs you get both of best worlds. I usually find people who hate Macs fall into three categories:

1. They can't afford it
2. They have no idea how the fuck to use a Mac
3. They don't do any demanding audio/video work certain types of professionals do for a living.

>>61037784
price

the same way that babies naturally respond favorably to someone with an attractive face vs a hideous one

made by toddlers, for toddlers™

>>61037784
they're expensive

the more expensive something is, the more my 14 month old wants to fuck with it

>>61054419
...what nigga
Apple has been doing the same "shiny case, ultra expensive shitty computer" recipe for at least a good 10 years. There's no "old Apple from 5 years ago". Their product lineup is pretty much the same.

>>61054748
Dafuq are you talking about?

>>61053364

You can use a USB device without a dongle. Just not a USB-A device.

>>61053364
>he uses deprecated USB standards

USB C is the future you fucking retard

>>61055525
>Remove everything who needs technology you fucking retard it's the future

being a stupid human is what attracts them to it you fucking idiot.

great job.

>>61049637
>a more stable OS
>macOS
Meanwhile servers with months of uptime all run Linux.

>>61055997
Servers != desktops

>>61056074
I don't think anyone implied otherwise, anon.

>>61056103
You don't compare servers to desktops

>>61056129
I don't think anyone did, anon... no one even mentioned desktops.

>>61056148
macOS is a desktop OS. So, yes you did.

>>61056163
Desktop OS's can run on laptops. You said I compared desktops to servers, not desktop OS's to servers.

>>61056189
Well, what did you expect? Who runs a desktop OS on a server or vice versa?

>>61056204
Microsoft.

>>61056207
Microsoft is a company, not an operating system. :-)

>>61056215
Are you being stupid on purpose right now? You asked WHO runs a desktop OS on a server, you didn't ask for an operating system.

>>61056222
Come on, you started it. Implying M$ runs desktop OSs on servers or vice versa isn't true. Windows is an OS family that includes server and desktop OSs.

>>61056261
No dude, the Windows server is a desktop OS. You have a mouse GUI. You have a start menu. You have an audio stack. You can run Witcher 3 on it. It's only a server OS because it has long-term support and they use more stable and older builds.
This conversation is getting kind of pointless. I prefer Linux over macOS on the desktop. Enjoy your weekend.

>>61056293
>a gui makes an OS an end user desktop OS because i say so

Literally retarded.

>>61056310
Ok, post the official spec for a server OS.

>>61037784

He's probably just amused by things moving on the screen

>>61056293
>>>61056261 (You)
>No dude, the Windows server is a desktop OS. You have a mouse GUI. You have a start menu. You have an audio stack. You can run Witcher 3 on it. It's only a server OS because it has long-term support and they use more stable and older builds.
Server core aims to minimise that, but even Linux servers without a GUI typically have an audio stack within the kernel. And you play games on them as well.
>This conversation is getting kind of pointless. I prefer Linux over macOS on the desktop. Enjoy your weekend.
Me too, I don't even use M$ or macOS myself, but arguing an OS isn't a server OS because it has a GUI is kind of pointless in itself. Every Linux distribution on a server that runs a GUI is by your definition no server OS.

>>61056293
yet windows server is still more of a desktop os than any linux distro

the fact that somewhere out there there is a farm of some GUI-less centos powered big black boxes that run "linux" for years, doesn't make me feel any better about not working samba, or missing thumbnails in gtk picker, or randomly crashing plasma, etc

because mac users are more attractive and well-adjusted to society, meaning they are more likely to procreate and expose their children to them

>>61037784
What is it about /g/ that attracts wannabe-adults with a false sense of superiority? Oh, right...

>>61056367
It's not just a GUI, it has a literal desktop environment. It can do everything the desktop version can do except some pre-installed stuff like Cortana. I'm not saying adding a window with an Ok button makes it a desktop OS, but adding an entire desktop environment? Yep.

You can run Windows Server on your desktop as a deskto OS - Hell, it will probably be better than Windows 10. You can't run Centos Minimal as a desktop OS. That's the big difference.

>>61056410
>and here is my proof

>>61056425
>>>61056367 (You)
>It's not just a GUI, it has a literal desktop environment. It can do everything the desktop version can do except some pre-installed stuff like Cortana. I'm not saying adding a window with an Ok button makes it a desktop OS, but adding an entire desktop environment? Yep.
Server core would similar to running Linux with X11. Yes, it can draw GUI applications, but it's still not an intrinsic desktop operating system because it can draw GUI applications.
>You can run Windows Server on your desktop as a deskto OS - Hell, it will probably be better than Windows 10.
You can, but that doesn't make it a desktop operating system.
You can't run Centos Minimal as a desktop OS. That's the big difference.
Yes you can, and then install an optional DE of your choosing from the repository.

File: 1485394641863.jpg (138KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1280x720px

>>61056410
>mac users
>procreate

>>61056425
>t. retard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Core

>>61056509
>Server core would similar to running Linux with X11. Yes, it can draw GUI applications, but it's still not an intrinsic desktop operating system because it can draw GUI applications.
Right, but X11 is not a desktop environment. I didn't just say it had to have a window server to be a desktop OS, I said it had to have a desktop environment. You even agree with this down below when you suggest that installing a DE on top of Minimal turns it into a desktop OS.

>You can, but that doesn't make it a desktop operating system.
How isn't it? What important desktop functionality is it missing?

>Yes you can, and then install an optional DE of your choosing from the repository.
Then it's not Centos Minimal anymore. I can also install Ubuntu and slowly replace apt-get with pacman, update the packages to match those in Arch, etc, but I can't keep calling it Ubuntu.

>>61056538
>spec
>wikipedia article
Keep embarassing yourself. Or better yet, show me how that definition includes Windows Server, but not Windows 10 since that was your point.

>>61056564
>>>61056509 (You)
>>Server core would similar to running Linux with X11. Yes, it can draw GUI applications, but it's still not an intrinsic desktop operating system because it can draw GUI applications.
>Right, but X11 is not a desktop environment. I didn't just say it had to have a window server to be a desktop OS, I said it had to have a desktop environment. You even agree with this down below when you suggest that installing a DE on top of Minimal turns it into a desktop OS.
No, I just said you're free to install a DE on your Linux server. And Windows Server with its GUI is still a server OS.
>>You can, but that doesn't make it a desktop operating system.
>How isn't it? What important desktop functionality is it missing?
We're not arguing its intrinsic functionality, because even your phone can host an SSH or HTTP server as well, that doesn't make iOS or Android a server OS.
>>Yes you can, and then install an optional DE of your choosing from the repository.
>Then it's not Centos Minimal anymore.
CentOS minimal is just a prepackaged installation image. It's still CentOS and you can freely install anything else after installation and it would still be CentOS.
>I can also install Ubuntu and slowly replace apt-get with pacman, update the packages to match those in Arch, etc, but I can't keep calling it Ubuntu.
That's arguing replacing the entire repository structure and installed packages which actually form the Linux distribution. So yes, then it's not Ubuntu anymore, but simply adding a DE from any repository doesn't make an OS any less of a server OS.

>>61056653
>No, I just said you're free to install a DE on your Linux server.
I never said otherwise, but actually you said a lot more than this. This was never the part I disagreed with.

>We're not arguing its intrinsic functionality, because even your phone can host an SSH or HTTP server as well, that doesn't make iOS or Android a server OS.
Then how do you define that Windows Server is a server OS and Windows 10 is a desktop OS? If it's not by functionality or having a DE, then what is? Having server in the name? Having a webserver pre-installed?

>CentOS minimal is just a prepackaged installation image.
So is every single distro.

>It's still CentOS and you can freely install anything else after installation and it would still be CentOS.
I never said it wasn't CentOS, I said it wasn't CentOS Minimal. Read again.

>That's arguing replacing the entire repository structure and installed packages which actually form the Linux distribution. So yes, then it's not Ubuntu anymore, but simply adding a DE from any repository doesn't make an OS any less of a server OS.
Ok, what's the line for what I can add until it's something else then? What if I replaced CentOS minimal package by package with Debian Server? Very different architecture, both are server OS's, so it's clearly not by package amount.

Just so we stop straying or strawmanning, my point is that what defines a desktop OS is having a desktop environment. Mind you this means a desktop OS can be a server, and any server OS with a DE is a desktop OS as well, they're not exclusive. You disagree. Let's stick to this discussion.

>>61056792
>Then how do you define that Windows Server is a server OS and Windows 10 is a desktop OS? If it's not by functionality or having a DE, then what is? Having server in the name? Having a webserver pre-installed?
Why don't you propose a definition? It's an interesting question, but simply stating that as soon as a system has a GUI or a DE it isn't a server OS anymore is silly.
>So is every single distro.
No, CentOS minimal is just a minimal installation image, just like you can have a Debian netinstall image. CentOS is the distribution; CentOS minimal is a prepackaged image.
>>It's still CentOS and you can freely install anything else after installation and it would still be CentOS.
>I never said it wasn't CentOS, I said it wasn't CentOS Minimal. Read again.
Yea, but any deviation from an installation image wouldn't make it the installation image anymore, which is a silly argument because who cares about deviations from a standard installation image?
>Ok, what's the line for what I can add until it's something else then? What if I replaced CentOS minimal package by package with Debian Server? Very different architecture, both are server OS's, so it's clearly not by package amount.
Replacing every package is not only tedious, it will also break the system's integrity. At some point you'd be left with a hacked monstrosity when you could've just installed Debian. But we're arguing desktop vs server OSs, not mutating Linux distributions.
>Just so we stop straying or strawmanning, my point is that what defines a desktop OS is having a desktop environment. Mind you this means a desktop OS can be a server, and any server OS with a DE is a desktop OS as well, they're not exclusive. You disagree. Let's stick to this discussion.
I agree, that's the discussion, but I deem it too inaccurate to call all OSs with a GUI a desktop OS. Let's agree to disagree then?

>>61056965
>Why don't you propose a definition? It's an interesting question, but simply stating that as soon as a system has a GUI or a DE it isn't a server OS anymore is silly.
I posted a definition that says it can be both. I mean, DE stands for desktop environment. It contains an environment for desktops. I don't see how an OS with a DE could NOT be a desktop OS. It can still be a server OS. Case in point: Windows Server.

>I agree, that's the discussion, but I deem it too inaccurate to call all OSs with a GUI a desktop OS. Let's agree to disagree then?
Well can you think of any OS with a DE that can't be used as a desktop OS just fine?
But sure. Most civil discussion I've had on this board in ages. Have a nice weekend man.

Senior systems engineer. I run devops centric engineering projects at the saas company involving 5 figures (count not price) worth of Linux servers. I use a mbp for work and a haxkintosh at home. Am I a toddler?

>>61057098
OP didn't say all macfags are toddlers. He said toddlers are macfags. Don't they teach propositional logic in CS?