Computing desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 19[edit]

Twitter question[edit]

I don't know anything about Twitter, as will be apparent. Increasingly on TV shows the audience is asked to contact the presenters/producers via Twitter (via an address given like @ABC). Firstly, is there a way to make those messages private to the recipient, or are they always visible to everyone? Secondly, asssuming they are visible at all, is there a way for people other than the recipient to view a stream of messages directed to @ABC, or would they only be able to find them "accidentally", e.g., by happening to be a follower of the sender, or by happening to search on a term relevant to the content? 86.160.221.80 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both. Direct messages are the solution to your first question, and a simple search for the @ABC, or more likely, #ABC or whatever the keyword, or "hashtag" they are promoting (like so: #DWTS for Dancing With the Stars) answers your second. Their hashtags could be anything, withe 140 character limitation as the only bound. Mingmingla (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that there are a great many thrid-party twitter clients that do all the various stuff you ask. Plus, the websites for the shows themselves often having a live twitter feed that collects all these things so you don't have to go digging. It's a promotional tool, and they want it to be easily found. Mingmingla (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is direct messaging on Twitter but, for example, for you to be able to send a direct message to @ABC, @ABC must be following you, so most of the time this will not be an option. --SubSeven (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mac[edit]

what are the advantage of mac line of devices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.88.21.195 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stylish, user-friendly, and often first to introduce new technologies ? StuRat (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stylish, status symbol. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expensive = prestige --_nonsense ferret 01:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability, ease of use, quality of product design (not just superficial qualities) including functionality, superior in typography, graphics & color management for many graphics professionals. Also I think Apple's customer service is generally better than its competitors. El duderino ^(abides) 04:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the slight weight of devices such as the IPhone is more than compensated for by how much lighter your wallet is, after buying one. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Other features of Mac desktops and laptops that I find advantageous: 1)OSX is built on top of Unix, so (compared to Windows) it offers better interoperability with many Unix tools. 2)Mac laptops are much sturdier in my experience, surviving bad falls un-damaged. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps most importantly, no more Kool-Aid required. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone's got a chip on their shoulder. 24.99.29.83 (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could afford one if you hadn’t bought that Apple device! :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why one would want a chip there, except to be 'stylishly' anti-Mac. El duderino ^(abides) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

To save money? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

riiight, that makes alot of sense. El duderino ^(abides) 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but yes, saving money makes sense to me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you think your bias against macs helps you save money. I say not in the long run, which is more important to me. Apparently you just can't seem to accept disagreement. El duderino ^(abides) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, PCs run on koolaid! It is funny that the term "kool-aid" in this context has become synonymous with cult leader since a madman called on dozens of people to commit ritualistic suicide... Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity. If anything breaks inside a Mac, you have to throw it away and buy a new one. With PCs, you usually have the option of opening it up and repairing it for a fraction of the cost of a new computer. Also, the hardware inside a Mac is much better than a $300 PC. But, you can also buy a PC with much better hardware than a Mac. And come to think of it, a Mac is really just a PC with a proprietary, somewhat locked-down OS.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a Mac is a largely open UNIX box with some proprietary extensions. At least for me and many other computer science researchers, that is the main attraction, and that's why I buy them. The nice, well-build hardware is a plus (including seemingly trivial things like a quite but responsive keyboard and a large, very good track pad), too. But if MacOS-X ever loses it UNIX roots, I will certainly switch to Linux on whatever high-quality hardware is available at the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Stephan above, and I must say I am a bit surprised at the (largely ignorant) Mac-bashing going on above. Specifically Best Dog Ever's claim that Macs cannot be repaired, that is simply wrong. It is true that, say iPhones have few (if any) user-replaceable parts. But very few cell phones do. And my power mac has just as many interchangeable parts as any other generic tower running windows. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He said the whole “mac line of devices”. One swallow does not a summer make. Sell your nonsense to the less informed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a pendant, none of the iOS devices are part of the "mac line of devices". They are, of course, Apple branded, but not Mac branded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense is from Mac-bashers who say Macs can't be repaired. Or imply that they break down as much as other computers. Anyway, the OP asked for advantages of Mac, not for PC snobbery about 'informed' opinions, which are still just opinions. You've had your say, why not let it go. El duderino ^(abides) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be exaggerated, like all things, but pretending it’s not more true than other lines of computers doesn’t make it so. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on Macs and they are much more difficult to work on than other computers. They make extensive use of Torx screws and the prices Apple charges for replacement parts are often obscene. For example, a new replacment "logic board" (i.e. mother board) purchased from Apple can cost as much as a new computer. Motherboards for regular PCs usually run from about $75 for a low-end end to $250 for a high-end model. Further, Apple will only sell these parts to licensed repair centers, and it restricts the number of repair centers it authorizes in each geographic area. So, you have a very limited choice of places you can take your Mac to get repaired. The only somewhat repair-friendly Mac currently made that I know of is the super pricey Mac Pro. The iMac is very similar in terms of hardware to a laptop, even though it sits on your desk. To replace the hard drive on an iMac, you have to use a suction cup and remove the screen: http://gigaom.com/2010/05/17/how-to-replace-your-imacs-hard-drive/. I had to replace a screen on an old Macbook Pro a while back, and to get to the screen, I had to remove the keyboard. That was the most difficult laptop I have ever worked with. Given Steve Jobs' obsessive attention to detail, I believe it is safe to assume that they were designed to be thrown away instead of repaired. That's why Apple makes them so compact. You have the Mac Mini, the iMac, the Macbook Air, and the new Macbook Pro, which are all very compact and getting more so each year.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the new Mac Book Pro's really be considered repair friendly considering they have soldered RAM rather then SODIMMs? [1] Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It wouldn't. The only repair-friendly Mac I know of is the Mac Pro: [2]. Mac Book Pros are a pain to work on, too.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree about the built-in obselescence but that is true for most products these days, not just Apple. (They've gotten particularly aggressive/greedy, imo, about accelerating the life cycle of electronics, especially tapping into techno-lust among Apple fans e.g. releasing a new iPhone and iPad every year). And while I can appreciate your anecdoctal, DIY experience with mac repair, i think it's misleading here to omit the fact that Macs are simply more reliable to begin with, so repair is less of an issue than with other computers. I think that's worth the higher upfront cost, as with many quality goods. El duderino ^(abides) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If that were true, it would be worth it. “Apple sure does stand by their customers!”¦ Reisio (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

heh, not sure what that link is meant to show, other than how you like slagging off Apple on other sites too. Give it a rest? Time to get that chip off your shoulder once and for all. El duderino ^(abides) 08:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jeez, after searching the archives here for "Mac Reisio" now i see how long you've been fishing for arguments on the subject. Sad. El duderino ^(abides) 09:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It’d never come up if people like you weren’t attempting to delude others in addition to yourselves. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather childish way of characterizing a fundamental disagreement. I'm sure you'll keep trying to get the last word. /pity ..But whatever, I see that others just ignore you, I think I will too. El duderino ^(abides) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only parts inside a Mac that are actually designed by Apple are the motherboard and the case. The memory, hard drive, CPU, etc., are designed and manufactured by other companies. For example, the iMac hard drive is a Western Digital Caviar Blue. Western Digital is a good brand, but the Caviar Blue is a cheaper model. It'd be better to have a Western Digital RE4 or a Caviar Black hard drive. So, you can certainly buy or build a PC that is more durable and reliable than a Mac. The problem is that many Windows PC buyers purchase the cheapest model they can find. So, you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare a $300 PC to a $1300 iMac. Instead, compare a $1300 PC to a $1300 Mac and then you'll have a fair comparison. Everyone says how they love the metal cases Apple uses. But I can buy a really nice metal case for my PC for $70 off Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129042. Likewise, there are lots of laptops not made by Apple that have aluminum bodies. The Mac OS is wedded to the hardware. So, it's very difficult to install the Mac OS in a PC not made by Apple. That's why I said the OS was somewhat locked down. And to the people who say they like having a UNIX OS to work with: just dual-boot Windows and Linux on a PC. Or better yet, install Linux inside a virtual machine and boot that. Or, install Cygwin inside Windows. Or just use Linux by itself.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced by such anecdotal evidence. I've used both wintels and macs for years and I'll stick with Apple for reliability, despite the caveats I've already acknowledged. Let's just agree to disagree. El duderino ^(abides) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]