While Apple itself has done a lot to piss me off nothing compares to how much the fanboys have done it. Apple does a lot of illogical things which the fanboys always defend, no matter how bad it is. The absence of a camera on the iPad caused fanboys to scream and yell how cameras are useless, yet at the same time Apple was working of FaceTime with the ability to have a video conference between multiple devices. But this post isn’t about FaceTime (again) instead I chose to write about some of the arrogant things fanboys have said in a while.

No maximize button

If you’re a Mac user you know that OS X does not have a maximize button anywhere on the operating system. The trade-off here is that instead of a “full screen” maximize Apple has implemented a stretch-to-content like feature. It’s a decent feature, but I don’t think it’s very necessary. If you need to resize a window to content, you could do it manually, quite easily. Maximizing takes a whole lot more work because you have to stretch the window so all corners in the window hit the corners of screen.

The feature is not the problem though, it’s the fanboy response to that.

“It’s because the Mac is all about multitasking, full screen does not allow multitasking”

I’m sorry, what? That sounds like you’re implying that we’re forced to run it full screen. Quite the opposite, we have the option of maximizing. I can have multiple Explorer windows open transferring files between different folders, I could be chatting on Messenger, and any other crap you might throw at it.

I do agree that maximized windows are against multitasking, but it’s far from being anti-productive. If you’re working in Photoshop, or editing a video in Final Cut, are you going to run it in a small 800×600 window or are you going to run it in full screen? In reality, having multiple windows open leads to distractions. Though the computer might be able to “multitask,” the human mind can only process certain things at once.

I’m going to go as far and say Windows 7 is better than Mac OS X at multitasking. The classic taskbar is faster at switching between open applications than the OS X dock, and ALT+TAB displays all open windows while Command+TAB displays one instance of the application. So if you have multiple Terminal windows open then it would only display the one.

I’m just confused why these fanboys are anti-feature. What’s wrong with having both a maximize button, and a scale button. A fair compromise would be hold shift and press the scale to fit to maximize. There, everyone wins.

The iPad 2 resolution

Recently there was a rumour going around that Apple would double the resolution of the current iPad in the iPad 2. While this rumour was based on the packaged files in the new version of iBooks, Apple fanboys jumped to conclusion and assumed everything was going to be new and different. To explain, when the iPhone 4 came out with its doubled resolution Apple added a naming scheme “x2” so that the appropriate resolution was chosen for the correct generation of iPhones. Well apparently someone found a file called “iPadx2” somewhere in the package.

The file was a background graphic (wood tile) and the original resolution was 768×400, where the x2 graphic was 1536×800. Mind you that the original iPad resolution was only 1024×768. Wouldn’t it be more possible that Apple just doubled the size of the graphic so that there would just be a large graphic, instead of a small tile?

What is the rumoured resolution of the new iPad? It’s a highly impressive 2048×1536. But the question is would Apple include such an impressive DPI/resolution on the iPad before including it in a Macbook Pro?

Another issue that affects this whole thing is price point. I don’t think Apple is the kind of company that would offer such an impressive resolution, with IPS at that very appealing $499 price point. Take into account that a large resolution like this would need a beast of a processor to render everything. Games at that resolution would demand an insane amount of processing power that I don’t think we’re able to achieve yet with mobile processors. With stronger processors, the battery life would be compromised and what would be very disappointing.

Verizon iPhone

In Canada this is totally unnecessary. Our CDMA carriers have switched to HSPA networks, and thus all carriers are able to carry the iPhones (well, all carriers that matter anyways.) However in the States this is some new dawn of time. I guess it makes sense since it used to be exclusive to a single carrier and now it’s available on two. This is not a significant jump at all.

The rest of the world is allowed to enjoy the iPhone on any carrier they wish, because there is no technology war between different technologies. While in concept CDMA is superior to standard GSM phones as it allows more simultaneous connections (and other technical reasons.) Modern GSM phones use wCDMA for the 3G.

Anyways, the fanboys are treating this like it’s the end of Android. Though the iPhone is technically available to more people, it seems like a pretty niche market. Most people who wanted an iPhone already had an iPhone. The whole Verizon deal opens the door to people who were never thinking of getting an iPhone before. Also with it being so close to the release of the iPhone 5, I see no point in investing in a Verizon iPhone, yet.

But by far the worst thing I’ve heard was:

“This is going to be awesome for developers.”

Yeah, how might that be? It’s still the same phone, it doesn’t offer anything new to developers. If Apple announced the iPhone 5 for Verizon then it would mean a lot. For now it’s just slightly larger sales numbers for developers and the same old for everyone else.

While I’m on the topic of the iPhone 4, where the hell is the white iPhone, Steve?